Faculty Senate Meeting
September 17, 2014, 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Butler Board Room
Colleagues--As always, all members of the faculty and university committees are invited to attend the
Faculty Senate meeting. Please take a few moments to look at the agenda below and the attached
materials. We welcome your participation!
--Lacey Wootton, Senate Chair
1) Chair’s Report – Lacey Wootton
a) Approval of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr and May 2014 Minutes
2) Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
3) Faculty Retreat—Nancy Davenport & Jim Goldgeier (3:00)
4) Middle States Evaluation—Karen Froslid-Jones (3:15)
5) New Senate Blog – Larry Engel (3:30)
6) Senate By-Law Revisions – Lacey Wootton (3:45)
7) Undergraduate Regulations – Lyn Stallings & Sharon Alston (4:00)
8) SETs/Beyond SETs – Chris Tudge, Tony Ahrens & Lenny Steinhorn (4:30)
Bylaw revisions
Original language
A. Executive Committee
At the final meeting of each academic year, the Senate shall constitute an Executive Committee
for the following academic year.
Revised language
A. Executive Committee
At the first meeting of each academic year, the Senate shall constitute an Executive Committee
for the following academic year.
Rationale
For at least the past few years, the Senate has elected new Executive Committee members at the
first meeting in September; this change reflects practice.
Original language
3. The Committee on Faculty Actions
....
The CFA has the following responsibilities:
 to make recommendations to the Faculty Senate and the Provost on all matters and
policies relating to full-time and part-time faculty appointments, reappointments,
tenure, and promotions;
 to evaluate and review, in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Faculty
Manual, all faculty actions involving the reappointment, tenure, and promotion of
tenure-line faculty and to make recommendations on all such actions to the Dean of
Academic Affairs;
....
Revised language
3. The Committee on Faculty Actions
....
The CFA has the following responsibilities:
 to make recommendations to the Faculty Senate and the Provost on all matters and
policies relating to full-time and part-time faculty appointments, reappointments,
tenure, and promotions;
 to evaluate and review, in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Faculty
Manual, all faculty actions involving the reappointment, tenure, and promotion of
tenure-line faculty and to make recommendations on all such actions to the Provost;
....
Rationale
This language was changed in the Faculty Manual last spring; the revision brings the bylaws up to date.
Original language
Article XII. Amendments
The Senate may amend these rules as needed but may not abolish elections as provided for
within units and also may not change the term-limit rule except as specified for very limited
circumstances in the election article above.
Revised language
Article XII. Amendments
The Senate may amend these rules as needed but may not abolish elections as provided for
within units and also may not change the term-limit rule except as specified for very limited
circumstances in the election article above. If language in the Faculty Manual is revised, the
corresponding language in the Bylaws will be changed automatically; however, if language in
the Bylaws is revised, changes to the corresponding language in the Faculty Manual must
undergo Senate and Board of Trustees approval.
1 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
To: The Faculty Senate
From: Lyn Stallings, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies
Rationale for change to 4.2 (Proposal submitted by John Hyman, Director of the College
Writing Program): A question about final exams came up at my meetings with CWP faculty
earlier this week. The policy regarding 3 exams in one day is sensible and well-intended. But in
practice it puts a burden on students. Here's how it plays out: A student goes to a professor and
explains that he has three exams. Professor X tells him that it's too hard to reschedule and that
the student should simply ask one of the other professors. But the student either gets similar
replies or he is -- for whatever reasons -- reluctant to approach the other professors. So the
student just sucks it up --as it were -- and takes the three exams in one day. We would suggest,
then, that the policy be tweaked to say that the student has the prerogative to change the schedule
for the one of the three exams and that the teacher must accede to that request. Perhaps we could
limit the possibilities to say that the re-scheduled exam must be taken within two days or
something like that.
4.2. Final Exam Policy
Students are expected to take final exams at the times scheduled by the Office of the Registrar.
Accommodations are made for students with excused absences and for students with documented
disabilities. Students with two exams scheduled for the same time and students with three or
more final exams on a given day may select one exam and notify that instructor by no later than
four weeks before the scheduled exam date to set up an alternative timeshould notify their
instructors who will resolve the that must be arranged during the final exam period for the term.
Unexcused absences at final exams may result in a failure for the course or other substantial
penalty. Students must follow any additional policies or procedures set by individual academic
units.
Rationale for change to 5.3: Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) has one definition for
federal financial aid and an expanded definition for progress toward degree completion for each
academic unit and the university minimum requirements. This has caused some confusion when
applied to the regulations. The above provides for SAP to be solely defined by and used for
federal financial aid requirements and provides a separate term (Academic Progress toward
Degree Completion (APDC)) with a corresponding definition for academic units’ and university
minimum requirements for degree completion. If passed by the Senate, we will have to go
through the regulations and change all SAPs that refer to academic units’ requirements to APDC.
5.3. Satisfactory Academic Progress toward Degree Completion
Undergraduate students (degree and nondegree) are making Satisfactory Academic Progress
when they are in Good Academic Standing, are completing 80% of all cumulative attempted
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
2 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
credits at AU, and are meeting on time the minimum requirements for majors and additional
requirements defined by the program. There may be higher requirements for students receiving
financial aid or other awards.
Undergraduate students must maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA and they must make Academic
Progress toward Degree Completion. In order to make Academic Progress toward Degree
Completion, students must complete 80% of all attempted credits with grades that meet major or
University requirements; a W in a course constitutes an attempt but not a completion. They must
complete the Writing and Mathematics requirements within the first 30 credits earned in
residence, they are expected to complete their General Education Requirements within the first
60 credits in residence, and they are meeting on time the minimum requirements for majors and
additional requirements defined by the program. Students who are not achieving minimum grade
requirements for required courses in their program may be subject to probation and dismissal for
failure to make Academic Progress toward Degree Completion.
Rationale for two changes to 5.8: 1) If a part-time student takes only one or two courses per
semester, it would take longer to bring up the GPA and he or she would be dismissed according
to the current regulations. The first change is to give part-time students time to accrue enough
credits before being placed on probation. 2) If a student is dismissed for falling below a 1.0 is
readmitted to the university, he or she must begin the first semester with the same GPA that was
posted upon dismissal from the university. This requires extraordinary performance within two
semester to ensure continuing at the university. The current regulation does not prohibit
readmission under these circumstances.
5.8. Academic Probation and Dismissal
The Registrar will place students on academic probation when their cumulative GPA falls below
2.00 or when the Registrar is notified by the Academic Unit that a student has failed to meet
other conditions for satisfactory academic progress that may apply in some majors. Once any
part-time student has attempted 12 credits, the student will be required to follow all regulations
regarding probation and dismissal. The Registrar will notify students in writing of their
academic probation status and the academic unit will provide a description of any conditions
associated with the academic probation. Conditions that students must adhere to during the
academic probationary period may include, but are not limited to, inability to petition instructors
for incompletes, successful completion of specific courses, minimum grades in courses, or the
overall GPA to be achieved in the academic probation period.
Once placed on academic probation, students must maintain a minimum semester GPA of 2.33
and show satisfactory academic progress towards raising their cumulative GPA to the required
level and meeting any other requirements unrelated to GPA, as stated in their notification letter
from their academic unit. Students are to check with the Office of Financial Aid to determine if
any additional criteria are required in order to retain their financial aid. Students can be placed on
3 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
academic probation for no more than two semesters in total, or three semesters in total if a
summer term is included. After that threshold is reached, students will be dismissed from the
University.
A student on academic probation may be subject to restrictions as to the load for which he or she
may register. Such a student is ineligible to hold office in student organizations or to participate
in intercollegiate competitions. Also, a student may with permission of the student’s academic
unit complete the season of any collegiate sport in which he or she is participating at the time he
or she falls below a 2.00 cumulative average GPA.
The university will dismiss immediately students whose cumulative GPA, after attempting or
completing 24 credits (excluding courses in which the recorded grade is W, I, or IP), falls below
1.0 (D). Absent extraordinary circumstances, students who are dismissed with a GPA lower than
1.0 will not be considered for re-admission.
When dismissing students from the university, the university may give students the option of
reapplying for admission after one calendar year has passed from the final day of the session
during which the dismissal was implemented. The dismissal will be included in the letter from
the academic unit, and recorded by the Office of the Registrar on the transcript. Readmission
applications are evaluated based on the total record of the student and consistent with the
admission practices in effect at the time of application. A readmitted student is governed by the
academic requirements in effect at the time of readmission.
Academic probation and dismissal are permanently recorded on the transcript. An academic
warning is not recorded on the transcript.
Rationale for the same change in 7.2 and 13.2: Currently, when students take a permit to
study during a regular term, they are not recorded as taking a leave from AU. If the student does
not use the permit to study and tries to return, the student does not have “active status” and
cannot register. Sometimes students are gone an additional term beyond the Permit to
Study term and the advisors have no way of tracking them to see what their plans are. Placing
students on Temporary Leave while they have a Permit to Study preserves their active status. If
the student does not use the Permit to Study, he or she can still register the next term. If the
student uses the permit to study, the transcript from the other institution will verify the student’s
active status and the Temporary Leave can be removed.
7.2. Study at Another Institution
Grades for courses taken during a Permit to Study at another institution are not recorded on the
AU transcript and are not computed in the GPA. Such courses will not count in the total number
of credits needed for graduation if the grade received is below a 2.0 on a 4 point scale. However,
students must meet GPA requirements for individual courses taken at other institutions as
4 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
required for electives or major or minor courses. Students must satisfy any additional
requirements provided on the Permit to Study form. Students who are issued a Permit to Study
during fall or spring semester will be placed on Temporary Leave. When students present their
transcripts to OUR for the Permit to Study, the Temporary Leave will be removed from the
record.
13.2 Temporary Leaves
There are three kinds of temporary leaves: general, medical, and military. Medical covers only
personal health reasons. Family health reasons are covered under a general temporary leave.
Students who are issued a Permit to Study will be placed on Temporary Leave until the
completed transcript from the Permit to Study is provided to the Office of the Registrar.
Students may not take more than two semesters of leave.
Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto
Field Code Changed
Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto
Brief Discussion Item: The Dean of Students and the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies
are receiving many undocumented or less-than-substantial requests for a reduction of course load
for medical reasons particularly from students who want to use the regulation to be withdrawn
from a course or courses they are failing. This is creating a back log of work for academic
advisors, DOS counselors, and others. We had hoped the highlighted change would help to
lessen such frivolous requests. Unfortunately, the Office of General Counsel advised against this
particular change. Fortunately General Counsel has directed us to similar policies at other
universities. We bring this issue to raise awareness, ask the senators to tell their colleagues not
to “approve medical withdrawals.” The Office of the Dean of Students reviews medical
documentation and provides verification of its authenticity and relevance to the request. Faculty
should only provide the last date of attendance if possible and any comments about course
conduct that they feel may be relevant to the student’s petition. In the meantime, we will
investigate best practices and we will hopefully be able to come forward with a better proposal.
12.6 Reduction of Course Load Due to Medical Reasons
In the event a student encounters medical difficulties after the eighth week of the semester and
wishes to withdraw from all courses or secure a reduced course load, the student must meet with
the Office of the Dean of Students to provide medical documentation. After meeting with the
Dean of Students, the student must meet with the academic advisor to file a petition requesting
withdrawal from all courses or reduction of course load and all affected instructors must be
consulted during the routing of the petition. Generally, AU will only consider such requests if
students were performing satisfactorily in the course or courses from which they wish to
withdraw. The Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies makes the final decision for such
withdrawals from all courses or reduced course loads.
To:
Lacey Wootton, Chair AU Faculty Senate
From: AU Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation and SETs
Co-Chairs Tony Ahrens (CAS), Chris Tudge (CAS)
Date:
August 27, 2014
Re:
Summary of Committee Work
______________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation and SETs worked in two subcommittees
and developed two sets of recommendations for review by the Faculty Senate: 1) why and how units
should move “beyond the SETs” in the evaluation of teaching; and 2) revisions for the existing SETs. The
executive summaries are listed in turn and the full recommendations are attached. Several key tasks
remain in order to develop a revised SET in line with the second set of recommendations. In the below
table, we suggest a timeline for accomplishing these tasks in a timely manner. Both the
recommendations for “beyond the SETs” and revising the current SET should generate a robust
discussion in the Senate.
Indeed, there was robust discussion within the committee. For instance, there were disagreements
within subcommittees. We note especially disagreements about the first item in the report from
Subcommittee I. There is general agreement that SETs cannot be the only metric of teaching
effectiveness. There is also general agreement that it is often difficult to know how different aspects of
teaching evaluation are used by the teaching units in their evaluations. This lack of clarity causes a
variety of problems, including increased anxiety on the part of those being evaluated. Presenting welldefined proportions, as is suggested by the subcommittee report, is one solution to providing clarity
about emphasis on different measures and a guarantee that factors other than the SETs are considered.
However, well-defined proportions also carry problems, and there are alternative procedures for going
beyond the SET. For instance, might the precision of proportions render more difficult the sort of
thorough, holistic, and idiographic analysis of teaching done by some units? If proportions are
encouraged to what degree should the use of proportions be determined locally versus centrally? And
would less burdensome procedures be possible for some actions (e.g., merit evaluation) than others
(e.g., tenure and reappointment)?
We leave it to the Senate Executive Committee to decide whether the recommendations are presented
together or separately, and ultimately when these recommendations are reviewed by the Senate.
We also thank Elizabeth Worden for her excellent work as Chair of this Committee and wish her well on
the sabbatical that recently led us to take over as co-chairs.
Executive Summaries

Subcommittee I: “Beyond the SETs”
High-quality teaching is critical to the mission of American University. As a result, we must both (a)
evaluate faculty on the effectiveness of their teaching, and (b) mentor and nurture good teaching.
Effective teaching has many dimensions, and so, as stated in the Faculty Manual, our evaluation
system must incorporate multiple means of capturing evidence of teaching effectiveness.
Based on this multifaceted understanding of teaching effectiveness, the “Beyond SETs”
subcommittee offers a set of recommendations based on the evaluation system:
1. In accordance with the Faculty Manual instruction to go beyond the SET, develop the
proportions of merit/review towards which SETs can apply.
2. Modify FARS to better record and represent teaching effectiveness
3. Balance teaching unit and university purview for teaching evaluation metrics
4. Clarify the mechanisms used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness and a related set of
recommendations in support of those above
5. Identify best practice mechanisms for supporting good teaching
6. Educate all members of the university about the functions of teaching evaluations.

Subcommittee II : Revision of the Existing SETs
The Subcommittee for Revision of the SETs distributed a faculty survey to establish: 1) what faculty
consider to be the purposes of the SETs and what should be the purposes of the SETs; and 2) what
type of SET questions (regarding both the instructor and the course) are the most helpful. The latter
will guide the drafting of the new SET instrument while the former provides the basis for these
recommendations. The survey was distributed to all full time faculty and the response rate was
46%.1 Overall, faculty are concerned that the SET as currently constructed may not reflect teaching
and course quality, and thus it is far more limited than what faculty want in terms of helping to
improve and evaluate faculty classroom work. Therefore we recommend creating an SET that serves
as a better measure of teaching quality and classroom learning, which will then provide valuable
information for a variety of purposes, including ways to improve, strengths and weaknesses, success
in meeting learning objectives, and metrics for evaluating teaching and classroom performance,
among others. We also recommend that faculty have an informed discussion about online and
paper-based SETs at the faculty retreat.
1
The survey was sent to all full time faculty (total of 960) on behalf of Dr. Phyllis Peres, Dean of Academic Affairs,
through email in April 2014. The results were broadly representative across academic units, professional status
(tenure, tenure track and term) and the student population that the faculty primarily teach (undergraduates,
graduates or both).
Remaining Tasks for Subcommittee II: Revision of the Existing SETs
& Suggested Timeline for Presentation of all Recommendations to the Senate
Time Frame
Activity & Details
September October 2014
The Committee, under its new leadership and with as many
continuing members as possible, will solicit faculty
feedback on the revised SET and recommendations for
“beyond the SETs” through multiple venues, such as:
Outcome
Faculty and student
input
1. Face to face discussion at the AU Faculty Retreat
2. Online forum, such as a blog similar to Middle
States
3. Focus and discussion groups of different campus
constituencies.
This feedback will also include a discussion of online SETs
versus hybrid (combination of online and paper). We
recommend that faculty have access to recent research
regarding online SETs to help inform the conversation (the
Committee has compiled numerous publications that can
be shared). We recommend that the Committee enlists the
support of a graduate student(s) to help consolidate and
analyze the feedback.
The Committee will ask the Office of Campus Life to solicit
student feedback through focus groups or other means as
determined by Office of Campus Life.
October November 2014
The Committee will incorporate faculty and student
feedback and make necessary revisions.
Revised SET
instrument and
recommendations
December 2014
The Committee will finalize and present the SET and
recommendations for “Beyond the SETs” to the Senate
Executive Committee and Faculty Senate.
Final SET instrument
and recommendations
for “Beyond the SETs”
Subcommittee 1: “Beyond SETs”
Report and Recommendations
Mark Clark (KSB), chairperson, Naomi Baron (CTRL),
Amanda Frost (WCL), and Rachel Robinson (SIS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
High-quality teaching is critical to the mission of American University. As a result, we must both (a)
evaluate faculty on the effectiveness of their teaching, and (b) mentor and nurture good teaching.
Effective teaching has many dimensions, so our evaluation system must incorporate multiple means of
capturing evidence of teaching effectiveness. In fact, our Faculty Manual mandates that we do so.
However, a 2013 survey by CTRL found widespread lack of clarity among academic units regarding the
role of SETs in evaluating the teaching of tenure-line faculty. Specifically, there seem to be few unit
guidelines regarding the weight given to SETs (whose importance predominated) relative to other
potential measures of teaching effectiveness. While we believe that SETs play an important role in
evaluation, we also believe that units should develop a transparent, multifaceted assessment of
teaching effectiveness.
Based on this multifaceted understanding of teaching effectiveness, the “Beyond SETs” subcommittee
offers a set of recommendations for creating an evaluation system:
1. In accordance with the Faculty Manual instruction to go beyond the SET, develop the
proportions of merit/review towards which SETs can apply.
2. Modify FARS to better record and represent teaching effectiveness
3. Balance teaching unit and university purview for teaching evaluation metrics
4. Clarify the mechanisms used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness and a related set of
recommendations in support of those above
5. Identify best practice mechanisms for supporting good teaching
6. Educate all members of the university about the functions of teaching evaluations.
BACKGROUND
The Faculty Manual mandates that evaluation of teaching at American University should involve
measures beyond the Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) forms. In carrying out its work in Spring
2014, the “Beyond SETs” subcommittee of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on SETs and Beyond reviewed
options beyond SETs for demonstrating teaching effectiveness that are currently contained in unit-level
tenure and promotion (T&P) guidelines on the web site of the Dean of Academic Affairs. 1 In addition,
we reviewed an example of a peer teaching evaluation system used in the Washington College of Law’s
rank and tenure process. We also solicited informal feedback from colleagues in our respective
academic teaching units regarding how best to go beyond SETs in both evaluating and mentoring
teaching.
1
http://www.american.edu/provost/academicaffairs/unit-guidelines.cfm#ten, accessed March 2014
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
In accordance with the Faculty Manual instruction to go beyond the SET, develop the
proportions of merit/review towards which SETs can apply
The Faculty Manual calls for the use of indicators of teaching effectiveness beyond SETs in evaluating
faculty teaching. Yet a recent study conducted by CTRL indicates both that some academic units have no
clear policies on how much to weight either SETs or other factors (which their unit previously identified)
when it comes to merit or promotion reviews.2
To ensure that both merit and promotion/tenure reviews of teaching incorporate such indicators and to
comply with the Faculty Manual, we propose that units should determine the proportions of the
evaluation of teaching that will be determined by SETs and by other measures; these proportions should
be developed by and communicated with faculty. Given that not all faculty members have the same
level of teaching responsibilities, these proportions will likely vary for different types of faculty
appointments; for example:
o For tenure-line faculty:
 For merit pay: units may want to balance approximately 50% SETs and 50% other
measures
 For promotion and tenure: units may want to balance approximately 30% SETs and
70% other measures
o For term faculty:
 For merit, promotion, and reappointment: units may want to balance approximately
50% SETs and 50% other measures. The actual proportion used by the unit can vary,
reflecting the nature of the appointment and teaching responsibilities.
o For adjunct faculty:
 For reappointment: units may want to balance approximately 75% SETs and 25%
other measures
2. Modify FARS to better record and represent teaching effectiveness
FARS should be modified to include space at the beginning of the document where faculty members can
summarize their most important accomplishments (in teaching, research, and service) for the year. Note
that at present, the only open-ended space in FARS (found under “Teaching”) limits faculty to talking
about pedagogical innovations or student outreach activities “that are not connected with a specific
course.”
3. Balance teaching unit and university purview for teaching evaluation metrics
Individual academic units should retain their rights and responsibilities to identify and utilize “beyond
SETs” options that best fit their unit, to determine the proportion of SETs and other measures, and to
support policies and practices for development of teaching excellence.
4. Clarify the mechanisms used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness
In accordance with the Faculty Manual (section 10a), units should develop a range of measures of
teaching effectiveness beyond SETs, recognizing that the choice of measures and weight they are given
may well vary with type of review (e.g., tenure-line versus term faculty, merit review versus promotion
or tenure). All faculty within each unit should be given the opportunity to participate in this process, and
the results of the process should be widely disseminated, particularly to those faculty who are up for
review.
2
This study is included in the CTRL report to the Faculty Senate, Fall 2013, and is available upon request.
2
Presently, all academic units have narratives (listed on the DAA website3) identifying the variety of ways
in which their own unit looks beyond SETs in evaluating (and hopefully mentoring) good teaching,
primarily for promotion and tenure. However, in reviewing these criteria in their present form, as well as
drawing upon CTRL’s survey of academic unit practices, it was difficult to discern how such multiple
criteria are actually applied; in addition, particularly for term faculty, there are few evaluation criteria
for reappointment and none for merit.
Examples of “beyond SET” criteria identified across units as well as proposed by our Committee include:
o Peer review of teaching
o Teaching portfolio
o Publications in/presentations at pedagogical journals/conferences
o Letters from former students and advisees
o Publications by students whose research faculty have supervised (faculty may or may not be coauthors)
o Self-evaluation of achievement of course learning objectives
o Examples of feedback provided on student work
o Fulfillment of course and program learning outcomes
o Preparation for advanced courses in the program
o Stakeholder feedback (alumni, employers, peers, etc.)
o Relative level of course (e.g., introductory v. advanced, general education v. majors and
graduates)
To help develop and use these measures, units can consult with CTRL and other resources. In addition,
units may coordinate this process with the Committee on Faculty Relations during each review cycle of
unit guidelines.
5. Identify best practice mechanisms for supporting good teaching
Teaching units should develop materials and training opportunities to support “beyond SETs” options,
working with CTRL or other resources as appropriate. The primary function of this support should be to
develop and mentor good teaching, rather than to serve as an evaluation metric. For example, we offer
the following list of support systems that should be continued or augmented.
CTRL and Unit Programs, Conferences, and Workshops
Both CTRL and several of the academic units have events and personnel in place to help support good
teaching. We strongly suggest that academic units work to shift their emphasis from asking faculty up
for reappointment to “raise their SET scores” and instead nurture an environment of helping them
improve their teaching.
Peer Observation of Teaching
Individual units should continue to have the option of whether or not to conduct peer observations.
Similarly, units should continue to decide for themselves whether feedback will be used strictly for
mentoring purposes or for evaluation purposes as well. However, we urge that the emphasis be put on
mentoring, not evaluation. In Spring 2013, CTRL offered a training session on effective ways of doing
peer observations of teaching. CTRL will prepare a handbook on peer observation during Summer 2014
and offer additional workshops for faculty in AY 2014-2015.
3
http://www.american.edu/provost/academicaffairs/unit-guidelines.cfm#ten, accessed March 2014.
3
Explore Creation of University-Wide Teaching Mentoring Program
While some academic units have in place programs to mentor faculty teaching, others do not. We
propose that the university explore the usefulness and feasibility of establishing a university-wide cadre
of faculty mentors available to faculty (and academic units) that choose to work with them.
6. Educate all members of the university about the functions of teaching evaluations
Information about the purpose, components, and uses of American University’s system of evaluating
teaching effectiveness should be shared with students, faculty, and administrators in an organized and
continued fashion. This process should ensure that:
o students understand the role SETs play in faculty evaluation
o faculty evaluation committees are aware of unit policies regarding the balance between SETs
and other criteria in evaluating teaching, along with the vital role of mentoring
o new faculty are introduced to the FARS system, including how it is used administratively
o administrators and/or university-wide committees making final decisions on merit pay,
promotion, and tenure remain cognizant of differential academic unit policies
High-quality teaching is critical to the mission of American University. Therefore, we offer these
recommendations to include multiple aspects of teaching effectiveness in our evaluation and support
systems for the continued development and practice of high-quality teaching.
4
Subcommittee II: Revision of the Existing SETs
Report and Recommendations
Elizabeth Worden (CAS), chairperson, Borden Flanagan (SPA), David Kaib (OIR),
Phyllis Peres (DAA), Lenny Steinhorn (SOC), and Chris Tudge (CAS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Subcommittee for Revision of the SETs distributed a faculty survey to establish: 1) what faculty
consider to be the purposes of the SETs and what should be the purposes of the SETs; and 2) what type
of SET questions (regarding both the instructor and the course) are the most helpful. The latter will
guide the drafting of the new SET instrument while the former provides the basis for these
recommendations. The survey was distributed to all full time faculty and the response rate was 46%.
Overall, faculty are concerned that the SET as currently constructed may not reflect teaching and course
quality, and thus it is far more limited than what faculty want in terms of helping to improve and
evaluate faculty classroom work. Therefore we recommend creating an SET that serves as a better
measure of teaching quality and classroom learning, which will then provide valuable information for a
variety of purposes, including ways to improve, strengths and weaknesses, success in meeting learning
objectives, and metrics for evaluating teaching and classroom performance, among others. We also
recommend that faculty have an informed discussion about online and paper-based SETs at the faculty
retreat.
SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS
Based on the results, we highlight a few of the findings below. The full survey results are attached to this
memo. First, the SETs should be revised and developed in such a way to better serve as a tool for the
improvement of teaching, student learning, course content, and learning objectives. Related, we
recommended that the unit and individual “choice options” be reconsidered. In the process of the SET
revision, we recommend that faculty be given ample opportunity to provide feedback.
1. The current SETS should be revised and rewritten to address the following:

Improvement of teaching, learning, and course content
Over 60% of faculty would like the SETs to help improve teaching but only 27.7% think the
current SETs actually helps improve teaching. Related, 44.9% think the SETs should aid in
improving student learning but only 15% think it actually does. Last, 58.1% think the SETs
should help the instructor improve elements of the course, such as content and structure, yet
only 27.9% think the current SETs actually does.
5


Assess course learning objectives
Faculty (43.3%) thought that the SETs should assess whether or not the course learning
objectives were met while only 18% of faculty think the current SET addresses this issue.
Reconsider and possibly eliminate the optional questions
Only 20.5% of faculty found the optional unit chosen questions to be helpful and only 36.7%
found the individual instructor chosen questions to be helpful. If optional questions like these
are to remain in the SETs, we recommend that they be re-designed so they are actually helpful.
2. Solicit further faculty feedback both in person and online venues
Our short but important survey provoked discussion across units. From informal feedback through
emails to in-person discussions at faculty meetings, it is clear that the SETs are an important and highly
sensitive issue. We recommend strongly that faculty be given the opportunity to provide both in-person
feedback (at the faculty retreat, for example) and online, which could also provide the opportunity for
anonymous comments.
6
August 4, 2014
TO: Professor Lacey Wootton, Chair, Faculty Senate
Professor Candice Nelson, Past Chair, Faculty Senate
Professor Larry Engel, Vice Chair, Faculty Senate
FR: Professor Lenny Steinhorn, SOC
RE: Draft SET
On behalf of the SET working group that joined me this summer – Maria De Jesus of SIS, Bette
Dickerson of Sociology, and Nate Harshman of Physics – I am sending you our draft of a revised
SET. Under separate cover I have sent the draft to the Provost and to the Senate Ad Hoc Committee
on Teaching Evaluation and SETs that met this past Spring.
In developing this new draft, our working group adhered to the following:
1. Its twin goals are to help faculty improve their teaching and to provide meaningful information
that can help faculty evaluate the teaching of their colleagues.
2. It was written in a style and tone designed to engage students – with the hope that they see it
less as a formal survey and more as an opportunity to have a conversation about the course and the
professor. Note, too, the survey response wording, which is designed to articulate the answer in a
way that students might immediately understand – and which tries to eliminate any cultural
ambiguity for some international students who may interpret the difference between “strongly
agree” and “agree” differently from students who grew up in the U.S.
3. It is designed to reflect the various areas where student feedback can be most helpful. Each
question offers an angle on our teaching – from how well organized and approachable we are to
how demanding the course is to whether students feel more knowledgeable after taking the course
– with the hope that the cumulative portrait will reflect our teaching effectiveness in the course.
4. It tried to avoid topics that students are not best qualified to judge. For example, students might
not be the best judge of whether exams or assignments effectively test their knowledge, but they
can provide feedback as to whether the faculty member specified what was required to do well on
these exams or assignments. We applied this type of strict scrutiny to all of the questions.
(continued)
SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
4400 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016-8017 202-885-2058
www.american.edu/soc
SET Memo, Page 2 of 2
Note that we did not include the "overall" questions used in previous SETs; these, we believe,
distract us from looking at the particular areas of our teaching and have for too long been misused
as the sole determinants of faculty effectiveness. Not having these "overall" questions will force
faculty who evaluate colleagues to create a portrait of teaching based on a broader range of data
and information.
Also note that we avoided jargon that students may not fully appreciate. So you won't find words
like "assess" or phrases such as "course objectives" in this survey. But we worded questions in a
way to obtain relevant information on these topics.
Further note that this SET draft drew from a number of sources, including the faculty survey that
the Spring semester Ad Hoc Senate Committee conducted as well as a thorough analysis of SETs
from about fifteen colleges and universities.
Finally note that our working group discussions yielded a number of issues worth considering. For
example, the draft SET uses the word "professor" throughout -- the logic being that this is the title
most commonly and comfortably used by students on campus regardless of the faculty member's
rank. To some of us, it is a warmer word than "instructor." But others thought "instructor" was
more appropriate. We also talked about whether to include a standard deviation when these
numbers are reported -- as a way to ensure that particular numbers are not taken out of context.
And assuming that the SET is done electronically, we saw any number of opportunities, among
them the ability to cross-tabulate findings and even to personalize the questions so that they don't
just say "the professor" but actually say "Professor Kerwin," in other words the actual name of the
faculty member.
We sincerely hope that this draft results in real reform and revitalizes at least one measurement in
our common pursuit of quality teaching.
SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
4400 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016-8017 202-885-2058
www.american.edu/soc
SET Draft
Scale:
5 – Yes, definitely
4 – Yes, for the most part
3 – Somewhat
2 – No, not really
1 – Definitely not
I. What did you think of the course?
1. This course is what I expected it to be.
2. I feel more knowledgeable after taking this course.
3. This was a demanding and challenging course.
4. The readings and other course materials enriched my learning.
5. The syllabus told me what I needed to know about the class, the assignments, and the topics
we were supposed to master.
II. What did you think of the learning environment?
6. The professor was well-organized and planned the class meetings well.
7. The professor presented and explained the material clearly in class.
8. The professor welcomed questions, comments, and observations in class.
9. The professor created a positive learning environment in class.
10. The classroom experience (such as lectures, discussions, activities, labs, etc.) enriched my
learning.
III. What did you think of the professor?
11. The professor was knowledgeable about the subject.
12. The professor provided me with the concepts, insights, and/or skills to engage successfully
with difficult and complex ideas.
13. The professor was approachable.
14. The professor encouraged us to stop by during office hours.
15. I would recommend this professor to other students.
IV. What did you think of the course requirements?
16. The graded assignments (such as papers, projects or other required work) enriched my
learning.
17. The professor clearly specified what was required to do well on the exams and other
assignments.
18. The professor gave useful comments and feedback on papers, tests, or other assignments.
Different scale for question 19:
19. The grades I received on the course assignments and/or exams fairly reflected the quality of
my work.
Yes, my grades fairly reflected the quality of my work.
No, my grades were too high given the quality of my work.
No, my grades were too low given the quality of my work.
Not certain.
V. Tell us about yourself
20. My class level is:
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Master’s
Ph.D.
21. On average, excluding class time, I spent this amount of time on the course per week:
0-2 hours
3-5 hours
6-8 hours
9-11 hours
12 or more hours
22. In terms of my attendance, I would say the following:
I never missed a class session
I missed only one class session
I missed 2 or at most 3 class sessions
I missed more than 3 class sessions
23. The primary reason I took this class was:
It was required for my major or minor.
It was a General Education requirement.
I was interested in the subject matter.
It was required for my MA, PhD or certificate program.
None of the above.
24. My previous academic experiences prepared me well for this course.
Yes, definitely
Yes, for the most part
Somewhat
No, not really
Definitely not
Free responses:
Here’s a chance to give the professor some feedback.
1. What was the best part of this class?
2. In terms of the professor’s teaching style or methods, would you suggest any changes?
3. In terms of the course itself, would you suggest any changes?
4. Would you say this course furthered your interest in the subject? If so, why? If not, why not?
5. Are there topics, issues, or skills you wish this course had covered or emphasized more? Did
any topic get too much emphasis?
6. Are you satisfied with your own work in the class? If not, what would you have done
differently?
7. Do you have any other comments, suggestions, or ideas?
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
January 15, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:36 PM
Professors Present; Candice Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Daniel Abramson, John
Douglass, Artur Elezi, Larry Engel, Bryan Fantie, John Heywood, Clement Ho, Gwanhoo Lee,
Stacey Marien, Glenn Moomau, Mohamed Nimer, John Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski, Gemma
Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor, Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott
Bass, Dean Phyllis Peres
Chair’s Report – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson welcomed everyone to a new semester. She stated that she also wanted to
welcome Clement Ho who will be representing the University Library this semester. She also
stated that the announcement from Beth Muha went out introducing the new benefit Back-Up
Child and Elder Care by Bright Horizons. This is available now so please contact HR with any
questions.
Professor Nelson stated that the Family Work Life Balance survey was sent out yesterday. The
survey was created by the task force and was modified slightly due to the implementation of the
urgent care benefit. Please inform your colleagues to take the survey.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that a memorial service for Don Myers will be held on January 23, 2014 at
3:00PM at the Metropolitan United Methodist Church. Don was an epic figure in the history of
this institution. He served at AU for 46 years. His vision and commitment to the university was
exemplary. He will be terribly missed.
Provost Bass encouraged the senators to visit the new SOC building. He stated that it is
spectacular and that the transformation of this historic building is remarkable. The progress of
the East campus is moving along. The buffer building is a technology and innovation building
and will house Physics, Math/Stat, Computer Science and the new gaming initiative. This
building will provide the necessary learning environment and learning spaces for the growth of
the university.
Provost Bass stated that the university received a million dollar gift for students to be engaged in
community based research. There will be a variety of programs around community based
research headed by Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies, Lyn Stallings. This will involve
students in projects in the neighborhoods that provide data and information back to the agency
and community. The hope to is to teach the students that attend AU their responsibility to give
back to others in a substantive and academic way, not just being a volunteer.
Faculty Senate • January 15, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 3
Provost Bass stated that the Ann Ferren conference this year was very well attended. A continued
topic that was discussed was the development of university wide learning outcomes. There are
learning outcomes that are being used but are not being used university wide. This would mean
that every student that graduates from AU would have confidence that they would have acquired
the skills and knowledge from the outcomes. Provost Bass also stated that he would like to see
these considered by the Senate Learning Outcomes Committee and ready for the Middle States
visit.
Conflict of Interest (COI) and Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) – Jon Tubman
Vice Provost of Graduate Studies Jon Tubman stated that he has been working with the Office of
Information Technology, (OIT) and purchasing to demo four different products for COI. He
stated they have been looking for a product that will be user friendly for a diverse group of
faculty. We have selected the program from Osprey Software Solutions. The product is external
to the university being cloud based. This was chosen for the reassurance of privacy expressed by
faculty. VP Tubman gave an overview of the step by step process of the program and a few
example questions that would be asked. He also explained the internal process of review for COI
as directed by the procedural statement of the university. The senators had further discussion and
questions about the Osprey process. Among the issues and questions raised were;



What happens to the information after it has been received and processed?
Will the disclosure statement be sent out annually?
Can you provide the senate with sample questions anticipated to be used.
VP Tubman stated that he would work with the smaller group developing the site to create the
questions and return with them to the senate. The disclosure would be sent out annually and after
the information is gathered in the Osprey site it will be sent to the appropriate person in each
school or college.
Professor Nelson asked that the senate re-visit COI after VP Tubman comes back with the
questions that are developed for the Osprey site. This will eliminate some of the uncertainty. She
also directed the conversation to begin on the issue of Conflict of Time Commitment.
VP Tubman stated that the draft that was provided was written by a subcommittee of the senators
and additional faculty members. He stated that he facilitated the conversation of COTC but it
was the committee of the senators’ colleagues that wrote the document. VP Tubman stated that
the procedural statement for COTC parallels the procedural statement for COI. It also states
disclosure and management, where necessary, is important to protect the reputation of the
university. The policy statement is codified in the Faculty Manual. In terms of outside activities,
the university will be asking people to disclose consulting, ownership, management or
involvement in other commercial enterprises as well as holding another job or a management
position at a commercial entity outside the university. The policy statement does not say that
these items are forbidden, but that they have to be disclosed to the head of the individual
academic units. The parallel procedural statement indicates that disclosure will happen once a
Faculty Senate • January 15, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
year and that some disclosures may need to be managed. The senators discussed various aspects
of the COTC process, such as

Will the senior officials at the university have the authority to disclose discovered
conflicts?
Provost Bass stated that nothing will be disclosed unless involved in a legal matter.
 Confusion was expressed about summer earnings and clarity was requested.
Dean Peres stated that there are clear examples in the Faculty manual to reference.

Will Term Faculty on one year contracts be excluded?
VP Tubman said that this could be something to be discussed when setting the parameters
of who will be selected to receive the disclosure.

Will this process require a valid subpoena for the university to disclose the collected
information to a third party or will it be at the discretion of the President or Provost?
VP Tubman stated that this was an issue for General Council.

In the event that there is an unauthorized disclosure, what sanctions if any are attached?
VP Provost Tubman stated that this is also an issue for General Council.

Does this process require all faculty to report minor conflicts such as anything less than
one day a week?
VP Tubman replied yes.
Professor Nelson asked if the senate would like to table this discussion and have VP Tubman
come back with more clarity of the document and the questions that have been raised by the
senators.
Professor Nelson stated that she would let VP Tubman know that the senate tabled the issue of
COTC and would ask that he meet again with the committee that created the current document
with revisions for more clarity. She also stated that this would come back to the Senate in March
or April.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:06 PM
Faculty Senate • January 15, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
February 12, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM
Present: Professors Candice Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Daniel Abramson, John
Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Larry Engel, Bryan Fantie, Joe Graf, Iris Krasnow,
Gwanhoo Lee, Glenn Moomau, Mohamid Nimer, John Nolan, Arturo Porzencanski, Gemma
Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor, Provost Scott Bass, Dean Phyllis
Peres
Chair Report – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson welcomed everyone to the meeting. She apologized to the senators for the late
distribution of the minutes and asked if the senators would like to table them until the next
meeting. The senators voted and the November minutes were tabled until the March meeting.
Professor Nelson stated that the Senate Executive Committee would like to propose unanimously
that Larry Engel be the Vice Chair of the senate for AY 2014-2015. The senate VOTED 19-0-2
in favor.
Professor Nelson stated that as mentioned in the November minutes, the discussion of SETs
would come back to the senate and it has. The senate has put together a committee to review
SETs and other teaching evaluations. Elizabeth Worden has agreed to chair the committee. If you
have questions about the committee Professor Worden has asked that you email her. The first
meeting for this committee will be February 27, 2014.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that the undergraduate enrollment has seen some new development and
changes this year. He stated that this is a reflection of the student population. There have been a
couple of problems this year with the common application. Not only was the application not
working for some time but there have been some changes that have influenced the way students
apply. Examples are, for example, an applicant cannot submit their application until all essays
have been completed and with the application fee. In addition, for the special programs, the
university has required additional essays. At the final hours before the application closed the
numbers were down 33% but in the last 24 hours an additional 2700 applications were submitted.
The numbers were still down. The special program numbers showed that with the three year
programs that most of them doubled or almost tripled. The new honors program, which has 45
seats to fill of which 5 are for the Fredrick Douglass Distinguished Scholars program, received
2700 applications which required the intensive essays. These are highly qualified students in this
pool. For the Fredrick Douglass Distinguished Scholars program the numbers last year were
over 800 applications for 5 slots, but this year there were 2300 applications. These numbers are a
Faculty Senate • February 14, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 4
clear representation of the number of quality high learning students that need to be converted
into other special programs at AU. This will be the focus for this year’s large applicant pool.
Emeriti Faculty Manual Changes – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that the language changes presented were to remove the sentence
allowing emeriti faculty to vote on the by-laws of their teaching and academic units. Concern
was expressed that taking away emeriti rights to vote will make them feel removed from the AU
community. The Academic Budget and Benefits Committee has specific language in the by-laws
that state the voting rights of emeriti faculty for benefits. Concern was expressed that allowing
emeriti to vote on current issues within their school or college might sway a vote on information
that they are really not informed about. The senate tabled the proposed language changes and
voted to bring new language back to the next meeting reflective of the senators expressed
concerns.
Senate Information Meeting – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton stated that the senate elections will be coming up in March and the senate
leadership has been discussing ways to get more faculty involved with the senate particularly
with new faculty. There will be an informational meeting on February 19, 2014 from 11:30 AM
to 12:30 PM. This meeting will be an opportunity to let people know what the senate does and
how faculty can contribute to important issues at the university. We are asking that you please
encourage faculty in your units to participate.
Library Manual Changes – Lacey Wootton
Professor Nelson stated that the Library manual has been reviewed by legal counsel and has been
voted on and approved by the library faculty. The Senate subcommittee members are Professors
Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Mohamed Nimer and Dean Phyllis Peres. The subcommittee has
gone through the manual and will present their findings.
Professor Wootton stated that the revised manual is a radical change from the previous manual.
The last revision to the library manual was done in 2003. She stated that the bulk of the changes
are to conform to the changes made to the main Faculty Manual. The policies and procedures are
essentially the same except where there are changes that reference the library:

Sections 1-11 (including Tenure-Line section): These sections are essentially the same as
the corresponding sections in the main Faculty Manual, except for language and
descriptions that have been adapted to the circumstances of the library faculty.

Sections 12-16: These new sections cover the “Continuing Appointment-Line Faculty,” a
new faculty category for library faculty. Overall, the timelines and procedures
correspond to those for tenure-line faculty. However, a requirement of “professional
contributions” replaces the tenure-line requirement for scholarship.
Faculty Senate • February 14, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 4

Sections 17-19: These sections cover term faculty and differ somewhat from the term
faculty sections in the main Faculty Manual, particularly in the faculty ranks.

Sections 20-32: These sections are the same as those in the main Faculty Manual, except
that section 29.iii. offers the possibility of sabbatical leave to continuing appointment-line
faculty, and there’s language to allow for annual leave and sick leave.
Professor Wootton stated that Dean Nancy Davenport and Librarian Rachel Borchardt were
present to answer any questions.
Dean Davenport thanked the senate for their review of the new library manual. She said that the
new library manual was imaged as much as possible to be the same as the Faculty Manual,
changing the language only where it applied to librarians rather than teaching faculty.
The senators discussed the following:

Why are the titles not different for Librarians?
The recommendation came from the library tenured faculty that they have the same titles
regardless of the type of appointment. It is a sign of collegiality. The titles in the library
are not included in the AAUP rankings.

Scholarly Activities – how are they evaluated?
This will be better developed in the Library guidelines. There are a very small amount of
impact related journals in library science. The current librarians are publishing in other
fields other than library science.

How will the librarians be evaluated by students like faculty are with SETs?
The library asks for feedback from the professors where librarians are a part of the class
especially for information literacy, particularly with the college writing programs where
librarians are deeply embedded.

How does the annual review work?
What use to be the merit review committee will be expanded to address this issue but the
guidelines for the process have yet to be developed. It will not be a full file for action but
it will be something similar to a review process similar to what is current practice for the
merit review.
The Senate VOTED to accept the manual and was passed 15-1-1.
Provost Bass stated that the library faculty have worked on the manual for many years. They
have researched nationally and have struggled to see what is happening with librarianship and
Faculty Senate • February 14, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 4
address these very complex issues. This manual is a real contribution of leadership. The final
decision rests with the Board of Trustees. Provost Bass stated that he is very proud of the library
faculty for their accomplishment of this manual.
University Learning Outcomes – Joe Graf
Professor Graf stated that early ideas for these outcomes were drawn from a variety of sources,
including Gen Ed outcomes and some information from Student Affairs, as well as the
statement of common purpose for the University. The big opportunity for the Committee on
Learning Assessment (COLA) took place at the Ann Ferren Conference. From this meeting a
large document of notes was sent to COLA and COLA then broke into subcommittees that each
handled various outcomes creating the current draft. Professor Graf stated that he would like the
senators to think about how these outcomes can be used. The senate further discussed the draft
outcomes and how they would like to see them impact all areas of the institution and the AU
graduates. The senate also discussed having the draft document approved by the senate by the
next senate meeting in March to be available for the Middle States visit.
Professor Nelson asked the senators to take the draft back to their units for input and to please
send any comments to aulearning @american.edu as soon as possible so the revised draft can be
presented to the Executive Committee for review for the next senate meeting. She also reminded
the senators that Conflict of Time Commitment will be coming in March as well and to get any
feedback to bring to the senate.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 PM
Faculty Senate • February 14, 2014 Minutes
Page 4 of 4
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
March 5, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:36 PM
Present: Professors Candy Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, John Douglass, Artur Elezi,
Larry Engel, Joe Graf, John Heywood, Clement Ho, Gwanhoo Lee, Stacey Marien, Glenn
Moomau, John Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor,
Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Chair’s Report – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson welcomed everyone to the meeting. She stated that the Board of Trustees
approved all the Faculty Manual changes that were approved by the senate at the February
meeting.
Professor Nelson asked the senate for the approval of the November 6, 2013 and December 4,
2013 minutes. The minutes were VOTED on and approved.
Provost Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that in February he reported on the undergraduate applications and what
remains a top priority is how a pool of applicants that have applied for specific programs such as
the Fredrick Douglass Distinguished Scholars and the Honors Programs are converted into
accepted applicants in a challenging program. He stated that there have been many working on
this issue to include the deans, associate deans, the admissions team and all those involved with
program creation to expand University College by 75 students, create a new AU scholars
program which will respond to 300 students who will all be in the living learning experience.
Also, with the million dollar gift from Jeff Sine who is the chair of the Board of Trustees, this
will offer a community based research scholars program which will accommodate another 60
students. This is the current focus to insure enough students to meet the housing limits and
enough to meet the projected budget.
SETs Committee Update – Elizabeth Worden
Professor Worden stated that she will be chairing the Senate Student Evaluation and Teaching
Committee. During the current semester and into the summer the committee will be drafting two
sets of recommendations to present to the senate in the fall of 2014. The first set of
recommendations will be about the SETs and possible revisions to also include how they should
be delivered either online or by paper. A short survey to faculty will be sent out within the next
two weeks to get things started and to compile faculty feedback. This will continue throughout
the fall with various forums such as some town halls and possibly presenting this during the
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 5
faculty retreat. The second set of recommendations will be building off the CTRL report that
Executive Director of CTRL Naomi Baron and her assistant Marilyn Goldhammer presented last
semester which will be moving beyond the SETs. The committee will be drafting other ideas of
how units can use other forms of teaching evaluations to compliment the SETs.
Professor Worden also stated that the committee has representation from all schools and
colleges, the Registrar, CTRL, Office of Institutional Research and Dean Peres as an ex officio
member. There will be student representation. The committee is also discussing how to get more
student feedback.
University Learning Outcomes – Joe Graf
Professor Graf stated that after review at the last senate meeting the document was sent back to
the committee to incorporate senate suggestions into the draft. COLA met and had a long
meeting to go over the feedback and put it into the outcomes. After the committee meeting the
Provost’s Council also weighed in with feedback. There is now an introductory paragraph that
has been added to state what the outcomes are about. Additionally, student affairs has reviewed
the document and is very excited about the draft.
Professor Wootton stated that a concern raised by her unit was hesitancy in approving outcomes
until there is a clear explanation of how the assessment application will be implemented. They
are behind the idea but feel it is just too soon.
Professor Graf stated that there have been a lot of the same concerns expressed.
Kathy McAdams, the assessment advisor in the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment,
stated that they have been looking at how the very broad outcomes are being assessed at the
program level. Whatever process is adopted will have a connection with the way the outcomes
are being assessed at the program level. She stated that they will be assessing them by faculty
teams which any faculty member can volunteer to be a part of and also by a cycle of reviewing
one or two per year.
Professor Graf stated that it would be a suggestion to have this document brought back to the
senate annually for review and input making this a living document.
The Senate VOTED and the document was passed in favor 15-1-1.
CFA/DAA 2014-2015 Guidelines – Pat Aufderheide
Professor Aufderheide stated that there have not been a lot of changes made this year. The
document has attempted to clear up the issue of requesting clarifying information and the process
thereafter. The guidelines have been changed to make clear that if along the review process that a
reviewing body requests more information, earlier reviewers must be given the opportunity to
review and comment on the added material. If relevant the vote may be taken again to reflect the
new material.
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Professor Simpson expressed the concern that when the unit guidelines are followed by
candidates applying for tenure and their materials assembled as directed by those guidelines and
then either by the CFA or by higher officers at the university the files are not accepted.
Professor Aufderheide stated that this is a process and by and large has worked well. The units
have all gone through the process of looking at their guidelines to make sure they are actually
answering the questions that both external and internal reviewers have. The CFA/DAA
establishes the logistics of how the process is managed; the Faculty Senate established the
general regulations for the process of tenure and promotion.
Dean Peres stated that the unit guidelines are reviewed on a regular basis.
The senate VOTED on the CFA/DAA guidelines for 2014-2015 and they were approved 16-0-1.
Conflict of Interest (COI) and Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) – Jon Tubman
Professor Nelson stated that there is already a Conflict of Time Commitment policy in the
Faculty Manual and that at this time the senate is not creating a policy but the process to
implement the policy. She stated that the senators who were on the senate last year did the same
thing for the Conflict of Interest policy.
Vice Provost Tubman stated that he has been working with Osprey software to come up with
nine or ten questions for the Conflict of Interest process. The questions are taken from the
procedure statement. VP Tubman stated that he expected there to be less Conflict of Time
Commitment questions. He stated that most other peer institutions have their disclosures process
behind a password protected portal so it has been very difficult to get examples of many
questions. He stated he was able to get 9 or 10 examples.
Professor Nelson stated that the questions are not meant to have a wrong or right answer but are
meant to open a discussion with the dean or the appropriate person.
VP Tubman stated that the procedure statement for COTC consists mostly of language taken
from the AAUP policy statement. In terms of transparency of what faculty are doing with their
time as full time employees at AU, the questions should ask you to disclose something that can
be discussed by the leader of an academic unit. It is not saying you can or cannot do something,
it is just asking for this to be disclosed for discussion. VP Tubman stated that this is not about
creating the policy but implementation of the policy that already exists. The document that the
senate has been reviewing is a result of the work of a sub-committee of Faculty Senators and
other faculty members. The procedure statement was drafted over a two year period by faculty at
this university. He stated that he facilitated the discussion but he cannot claim that this is his
document. This is a document created by the faculty of this institution. These very faculty
wanted as narrow a scope as possible of what would be disclosed.
Professor Porzecanski asked if the issue of summer work should be made clearer at this time as
there is confusion about it.
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 5
VP Tubman stated that there is a clear statement in the faculty manual about outside teaching.
Professor Nelson asked Professor Burke if he wanted to make any comments since he was also a
member of the committee reviewing COI and COTC.
Professor Burke stated that the committee reviewed the Conflict of Interest but did not review
the Conflict of Time Commitment. The committee has not met at all this year. He also stated that
as far as he knew this was VP Tubman’s work.
VP Tubman stated that that was not accurate information. The Committee began its work as a
large group and decided to separate the two issues and began working on them one at a time.
Professor Burke stated that he could agree that the committee has not met this year at all and that
they have not reviewed the last two versions that have been presented.
VP Tubman stated that was correct that the committee last met last April and that the current
document has not had any substantial revisions since last February or March.
Professor Burke stated that he did not come to the same conclusion.
Professor Engel stated that he was a member of the committee and to his recollection the current
document was not written by the committee but brought before them.
Provost Bass stated that he is concerned about the nature of the conversation. It is very clear in
the Board approved Faculty Manual that there is a policy and it is his responsibility to implement
the policy. This has been going on for three years. The manual is clear and outlines the policy.
The Board of Trustees has approved the policy and it is my obligation to implement the policy so
I ask that you please work together to resolve and implement this process.
Professor Simpson underscored the importance of trust in the disclosure process and expressed
his concerns about the “disjunctures” between different elements of the process.
VP Tubman explained to the senate how the new software by Osprey will work for Conflict of
Interest. He stated that there is an option to use the program for Conflict of Time Commitment.
Professor Nelson suggested that the document be sent back to the committee to review and to
make any changes necessary in April for a final vote.
Provost Bass stated that he would like the committee to make sure the look at the Faculty
Manual and make sure that the questions that are of concern are being addressed. The issue of
balance is absolutely right and he wants to make sure that what the senate and the BOT has
approved is implemented. This must be done by next fall and if it is not done through the senate
Provost Bass stated he will implement it himself.
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Professor Moomau stated that it would help to clear things up for faculty to provide the questions
so they can see what is being asked.
Professor Burke stated that he would speak to the committee and they would reconvene to
review the document.
Professor Nelson stated that with spring break coming it would be more realistic to bring the
findings of the committee back to the senate in May.
Emeriti Faculty Manual Changes – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that at the last discussion of the Emeriti language changes, many faculty
expressed their concern that the language was not giving the Emeriti faculty an appropriate
voice. The Executive Committee proposed to strike the Emeriti voting privileges except on the
Academic Budget and Benefits Committee where it applied to benefits that affect them. The
additional statement that they will add is to have a voice on all issues in their unit.
The senate VOTED and the changes were passed in favor 16-0-1.
For the Good of the Order
Professor Wootton asked the senators to encourage their colleagues to self-nominate to be on the
Faculty Senate for the upcoming elections. It would be nice to have more diversity of different
types. The work load for one Wednesday a month is minimal and it is a great way to participate
in important decisions for the future of the university. Senate leadership has been discussing how
to reach more faculty and let them know what exactly the senate does and answer any questions
so any suggestions would be welcomed.
The Meeting Adjourned at 4:03 PM
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 5 of 5
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
April 2, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM
Present: Professor Candice Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Daniel Abramson, John
Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Larry Engel, Bryan Fantie, Joe Graf, John Heywood,
Clement Ho, Gwanhoo Lee, Stacey Marian, Glenn Moomau, John Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski,
Gemma Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor, Elizabeth Worden, Provost
Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Chair’s Report – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that the at-large Grievance and Hearing Committee elections will be
closing at the end of the week and asked Senators to encourage their colleagues to vote. The unit
elections for the remaining committees and senate seats are in process and should be complete by
next week.
Professor Nelson stated that she had spoken with Assistant Vice President of Human Resources
Beth Muha who said the emergency care program that went into place in January has been a
tremendous success. There are more people signed up than expected and the service is being
used.
Presidents Report – Neil Kerwin
President Kerwin thanked the senate for having him come to speak. He stated he usually comes
annually to give an overall report of the condition of the university almost always drawing
exclusively on our own data and assessments, but this year he has the benefit of a once in ten
year opportunity that comes our way to use the data from the Middle States Accreditation. This
happens every ten years and at this time the university is in the final stage. The process began
with a self-study which started 18 months ago. The committee was chaired by Robert Blecker
from the Department of Economics and Karen Froslid-Jones, Director of the Office of
Institutional Research and Assessment. The person selected to head the site visit team comes to
campus for a preliminary visit to meet with the President and other members of the campus to
help organize the visit and make recommendations as to the type of individuals who should be on
the team. Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina from Syracuse University was selected as the
site visit chair. President Kerwin stated that the exit interview went very well. The draft report
should be received shortly and along with himself and Provost Bass they will have the
opportunity to review the report for factual errors only. There will be a very substantial list of
suggestions and three recommendations. If the commission accepts the recommendations those
will be the only items that will need to be acted on between now and the periodic update which
happens in five years.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 7
President Kerwin stated that the three recommendations were:
1. Being self-conscious of what it will take to sustain the progress the institution has made
over the past decade.
2. They were very impressed with the faculty and what the faculty and the administration
have done over the past few years. They complimented the work of the Senate on the
Faculty Manual and the Academic Regulations.
3. Changes to the undergraduate student body. They indicated that this student body will
need a higher level of support than past student bodies in AU’s recent history. They asked
AU to spend more time on retention and whatever it takes to help these students succeed.
President Kerwin said that overall he hopes that when he is allowed to share the draft report with
the community, everyone will be pleased with what they read and proud of what everyone has
accomplished.
President Kerwin stated that the general condition of the university is sound. The fiscal year
2014 will end in balance. Fiscal year 2015 will begin on May 1 and there are a couple of areas of
revenue uncertainty. Some have been triggered from events this year and some are still
developing. He stated that there had been a very aggressive number set in regards to retention of
our students from fall to spring which was not achieved. This caused an embedded problem not
only for this year but for next year as well. Provost Bass and Associate Vice President Doug
Kudravetz are working on correcting the modeling and this will help to know what revenue
challenge this represents. We do know it is in the low millions. Additionally, there was a lower
applicant pool for both freshman and transfer students. This does affect about 65% of the
operating revenue so we will be watched to see how it develops.
President Kerwin stated that the number of applications is not good news. He said that he has
heard out in the industry that there are a series of events that are held around the country at this
time of year. Compared to last year the prospective student attendance at these events is up 43%
and deposits are up 16.7%. There were some changes to the application process which should
have helped weed out the less than serious applicants at the freshman level. The transfer level
numbers might have changes thanks to the matriculation work done which pretty much lets the
transfer students know exactly what credits will transfer over. At this time we do not have any
numbers on summer or graduate students.
President Kerwin said that there is a lot of building happening on campus. The weather has not
been kind so the construction is running about 5 weeks behind at the Tenleytown Law School
site. SOC has gone a little slower than hoped but faculty have moved in. East campus is
scheduled to begin work this summer. He said he, along with Provost Bass, have reviewed plans
for the buildings that will go on East Campus, which include the three residence halls and one
academic building. There is still an outstanding law suit against the zoning commission. The
District of Columbia is challenging elements of the order which allows AU to build on that site.
This does not affect the capacity to move forward but it does require the zoning commission to
provide the court of appeals answers to a series of questions which the court has posed as a result
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 7
of the challenge of the neighbors. The expected move in date to East Campus is the summer of
2016. At that point we will then begin renovations on 4801 Massachusetts Ave, the building
vacated by the Washington College of Law. The remaining effort will be to see if the university
can get a science facility funded and ready to go. With all the changes the university will meet
the requirement to house 67% of the undergraduates on campus which is a fixed requirement of
the District of Columbia. This is a tough requirement to meet but the lowest of any university in
town.
President Kerwin said that he wanted to commend the student athletes this year. Not only the
basketball team. There were a lot of major accomplishments amongst many of the teams. He
also stated that looking ahead the university will begin the process of setting new objectives
under the strategic plan for year seven and eight sometime this spring. This will run in parallel to
an impanelling of a new university budget committee sometime in August or early September.
The committee will be co-chaired by the Provost and Associate Vice Provost Doug Kudravetz.
The budget will be for fiscal year 2016-2017 and will take us through most if not all of the
financing for all of the facilities that are on line now. The university will also begin taking the
first steps to implementing what the Middle States commission requires.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that he was present at the meeting with the faculty and Middle States
and wanted to make clear the three crystal clear points made by the faculty group:
1. A need for more resources for faculty transitioning from Associate Professors to Full
Professors.
2. Sponsored programs and post award coordination.
3. Collaboration between schools. Being able to cross list courses and encourage
collaboration.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that he would like to start with a response to the comments from Professor
Eisenstadt. He stated that in regards to mobility in position, it is something that is taken very
seriously in the Provost’s office. The DAA has instituted a variety of programs that would work
with junior faculty or senior faculty. Related to administrative expenses post award costs money
to manage. He stated he agreed that this is a matter that needs attention. As a result, the
university brought in a three person review team right before Middle States review who were
from NCURA and he stated he should have their report soon. As for the cross unit collaboration
this is an important issue for this administration and he stated that he has worked with the Deans
on this issue. He also stated he has support of the BOT and the Senate and was highly
complemented by the Middle States team.
Provost Bass stated that the Middle States review team expressed that AU is “a transformed”
institution. It is not the same institution that was reviewed six years ago. He said that he will
provide a summary of the report at his annual address to the community. He will speak on 1)
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 7
recognition and the understanding of who AU is, 2) identity and the accomplishments that AU is
recognized for, 3) international and domestic recognition.
Provost Bass said that on April 27, 2014 the Faculty Recognition Dinner will take place. He
hopes that all senators will be there to recognize their colleague’s accomplishments.
Professor Simpson asked for an explanation from the Provost of the role of the CFA and his
interpretation of the committee’s duties.
Provost Bass stated that the interpretation is from the faculty manual where the duties of the CFA
are charged. He stated that the CFA makes an overview of the material after reading it and they
do read the material. They also will insure the independence of the file which is part of their
duties. This is not a content or subject review but they are reviewing the file to make sure the
letters are independent, all the required items are in order and the file has gone through all the
proper stages. This is very important before it arrives to the DAA/Provost’s desk. They are
making substantive and intellectual votes on the materials they receive. This is what the manual
calls for.
Professor Simpson stated that he has heard that the basis for the votes by the CFA is to determine
if the candidate has fulfilled the terms of the guidance created at the unit level. He asked does the
committee make its own interpretation of what quality in a given field might be?
Provost Bass stated that the CFA is not a “rubber stamp.” They make their own judgments. He
stated he cannot speak for the individuals on the committee as he or the DAA does not know
what they say, but he can assure that what they are providing is their own review of the material,
and they make judgments and they either agree or disagree with the prior reviews. As you know
well not all levels agree with each other. The CFA provides additional input before it arrives at
the DAA/Provost level for review. Their reviews are distinct and important and are read on their
own merits in terms of a complete file.
Professor Simpson asked what role do the unit guidelines play in the process.
Provost Bass stated that every stage of the process makes it own judgement based on the
guidelines of the unit. It is not an aggregated process that comes up because one unit says this
and the next unit agrees. Every unit makes its own judgement based on the guidelines and based
on their assessment of the file. They make judgements based on a file and the record that is in the
file and not everybody agrees with the reading of the material. I would assume the CFA as a
group of 8 or 9 individuals make those judgements as thoughtfully as they can as a body. There
are dissents in that review and they provide the vote and what the dissentingnding position is.
Professor Fantie stated that he thinks it would be helpful to have classes listed to explain the
portion of online time and classroom time a class has. He said that he gets this question from
students when they are registering and this might help them when planning their schedules.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Provost Bass stated that he had a meeting with the OUR and the details of online, face to face
and hybrid classes will be made clear. This will also help with assigning classrooms.
Professor Puglisi stated that she is concerned about the late night classes that AU offers. She
asked has there been any discussion of not having classes start so late.
Provost Bass stated that this is actually quite the opposite of the direction of our students. They
are pretty much just getting going and there are other institutions that have implemented
midnight classes or later. Students really do not get started until after what we call lunch time.
There is a concern that there is not enough offered in the time frame they work in. He has
received complaints that the computer labs are being locked at 11:00 PM which is just when they
want to get in and use them. This is just a different group of students that live on a different time
schedule.
Professor Eisenstadt asked since there is a slippage in applicants selecting AU what can be done
to prevent this in the future?
Provost Bass stated that selectivity in applicants may be an advantage because we want a
stronger match to the students that apply. Of the 15,000 students that applied over 6,000 filled
out 8 essays to get here and of that 6,000, 1600 applied to two programs requiring 16 essays. The
SAT scores are about the same, the GPAs are the same if not better, the diversity is more and the
early decision is more than previous years. Maybe being a little tougher up front but maybe not
as much as this time, and being a little clearer on who we are and what is expected will provide
us with a better pool of students. We are monitoring this new outreach to see what is working the
best.
Athletics Report – Billy Walker
Director of Athletics Billy Walker thanked the senate for having him. He stated that annually the
senate invites the Director to come and give an overview of the athletes at AU. He stated that the
AU athlete is also an outstanding student. When recruiting prospective students it is made clear
that their main focus is academics but at the same time they can get a Division 1 experience. The
average GPA this past fall for approximately 264 athletes was a 3.34. 16% of the athletes were
on the dean’s list, 45% had a GPA of 3.5 or higher and 88% were above a 3.0. Director Walker
stated that they have had three “scholar athletes of year.” This is a very impressive number and a
big deal in the Patriot league. These awards were given to Jessie Reed, a sophomore on the
men’s basketball team, Alexis Dobbs, a senior on the woman’s basketball team who has won the
award her sophomore, junior and now senior years, and the third winner is Monika Smidova, a
junior. AU is a Division 1-AAA school which means that we have basketball only, no football.
Two of our women’s basketball players have been selected to be on the Scholar-Athlete team,
Jen Dumiak and Arron Zimmerman. Ten players are picked for this team and AU has two.
Director Walker stated for the team academic awards the AU field hockey team has the highest
GPA at 3.6 for all hockey teams in the country. The men’s swimming team has the third highest
GPA at 3.39. The women’s swimming team had the 19th highest GPA at 3.46.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 5 of 7
Director Walker stated that the athletes are using many of the services offered at AU. They have
603 hours of tutoring for AY 2013-2014 as of 3-31-14 and 1340 meetings with the academic
counselors. Additionally the students use many of the Life Skills Programs including the
Freshman Transition Workshops, the Financial Literacy Program, the Leadership Development
Program and Career & Graduate School Preparation. This is the objective of the athletic
department to give the best experience and academic support possible to our athletes.
Professor Puglisi and Professor Fantie stated that the student athletes they teach are extraordinary
and a pleasure to teach.
Changes to the Undergraduate Regulations – Lyn Stallings
Vice Provost Lyn Stallings stated that the Undergraduate Regulations needed some editorial
changes made. The terminology needed to be updated and special thanks to University Registrar
Alice Poehls who had taken the time to go through the document to make sure that everything
matches. The following changes were made:











Transfer policies for transfer credits. This change reflects what is currently on the
admissions page for transfer students.
Good academic standing policy was changed to be more consistent to what good
academic standing means. This means that there is nothing standing in their way to
register the next semester.
General Education requirements will only apply with a grade of a C or better.
Non-degree students may only apply no more than 30 non-degree American University
credits.
Individualized majors and minors will reflect the proposal that the senate Undergraduate
Curriculum committee revised.
Dual Degree language was added to reflect that students need to meet with financial aid
to make sure they understand how the change in credits will affect their financial aid
packages.
New language was added to the Honors Program section to reflect the new American
University Honors Program approved by the senate last April. Individual teaching units
will be able to offer an honors in the major as the current process will end after the final
graduating class completes their current degree.
Three Year Bachelors has changed the name to be Degree-Completion Scholars
Programs.
Combined bachelor’s and master’s credit hours with an updated table to clarify the hours
required for the master’s degree.
Withdrawal from a course or from all courses included specific dates to be recorded and
filing a petition for withdraw after eight weeks of class.
Reduction of Course Load Due to Medical Reasons - requires student to meet with
medical documentation, appropriate meetings with specific administrators and the filing
of a petition approved by the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 6 of 7

Language clarification of temporary leave and medical temporary leave which can be
ordered by the Dean of Academic Affairs with documentation to leave and return.

Separation from the university when a student’s grades led them to dismissal may not
voluntarily separate and students who separate from the university will not be readmitted
again if they separate a second time.
The senate requested the proposed Academic Regulation changes presented for Internships be
revised and brought back to the senate at the May 2014 meeting.
The senate VOTED on all other Academic regulation changes and they were passed
unanimously in favor.
Provost Bass stated that he hopes this process of review of the regulations is something that
happens periodically. This is a living document and as things change they will need to be
updated.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 7 of 7
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
May 7, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:38 PM
Present: Professor Candy Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Daniel Abramson, Jon
Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Larry Engel, Bryan Fantie, Joe Graf, John Heywood,
Clement Ho, Iris Krasnow, Jun Lu, Gwanhoo Lee, Stacey Marien, Glenn Moomau, John Nolan,
Arturo Porzecanski, Gemma Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Mathew Taylor,
Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott Bass
Chair’s Report – Candice Nelson
Professor Nelson welcomed all senators to the meeting. She stated that she would like to
welcome all the new senators and asked for them to stand and introduce themselves. The
attending new senators were: Professors Andrea Pearson from CAS, Stephen Sylvia, the
incoming chair of the CFA, Billie Joe Kaufman, Associate Dean for Library and Information
Services for the WCL Pence Library, and Tony Ahrens from CAS. Professor Nelson thanked the
new members for their willingness to serve on the senate.
Professor Nelson stated that this was the first year that the senate has practiced being paperless
and the savings was around $1800.00 dollars.
Professor Nelson also stated that the results from the Family Work Life Balance Survey have
been distributed and the task force will be meeting again in the fall to address the responses.
About 40% of the faculty responded to the overall survey and a little less than 30% answered the
open ended questions. The committee will report back on the results in the fall.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that Dean Phyllis Peres is absent and he is not certain when she will be
returning. He stated that Phyllis is very important to him and as a member of the community.
Abby Puskar will be taking the position of the Assistant to the DAA and Provost Bass stated he
is covering Dean Peres’s duties at this time. He asked all to be patient as they work through this
difficult time.
Provost Bass stated that the enrollment numbers are in and completed. The application total this
year was 15,000 which was down 2,000 from last year and 3,000 from the year before. This year
we did introduced the new University Honors Program and are continuing with the Fredrick
Douglass Distinguished Scholars Program. We have a phenomenal number of applications
interested in these high intensity learning experiences. We have also created several other
scholars programs and we are pleased to say that the target number was 1,700 deposits. This
meets the number set of 1,600 students; the difference includes those who accept elsewhere or
Faculty Senate • May 7, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 7
drop for other reasons. As of close the deposit number was 1,933 deposits. This was much more
than the expected yield. This does create new challenges in providing housing, special programs
and of course instructional offerings. This is good news and tells us the interest of the students
seeking a high quality undergraduate experience. He also stated that in regards to the special
populations that the university has tried to maximize in terms of racial and ethnic distribution the
total minority in the upcoming class is 31.7% , up slightly from 29.6%. The Asian population is
now up by 32%, Hispanic up 29.7% and African American is 1.5%. The international population
is up by a small percent of roughly 7% to include both citizens and permanent residents. First
generation increased to about 11.3 % which is 25% of the class. Pell eligible is up 27% to be
21% of the class. There has been growth in all regions; however California and Massachusetts
are now about tied. All schools have had a growth in enrollments with the largest being SPA and
Kogod and the least being SIS which already has large numbers.
Provost Bass said that undergraduate enrollment is strong but graduate enrollment is still weak
and is a great concern.
Provost Bass stated that he has finished the tenure and promotion decisions. He stated he will be
in 6 graduations and he is looking forward to them and the guest speakers. There might be a need
for a special summer senate meeting and he stated he will go through the Executive Committee
first and then request a senate meeting for all those senators who can attend.
Provost Bass reminded the senate that the 2 year budget cycle begins this year.
Senate By-Law Changes – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton stated that when preparing for the senate election cycle a few items came up
that need to be adjusted.



Article II. Membership – language clarification on who can run for senate seats to
include term faculty with a contract to accommodate a two year senate term and language
to define new senators terms to begin on June 15
Grievance Committee Representation – Language to clarify that all units are
represented on the committee
Committee on Information Services – adding term length of a staggered two-years
The Senate VOTED and the changes to the by-laws were passed 21 in favor, 0 opposed and 2
abstentions.
Library Manual Update – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that when University Librarian Nancy Davenport and Assistant Librarian
Rachel Borchardt met with the BOT the question was raised about merging the two manuals so
there will only be one. The library faculty agreed to move in this direction. There will be one
manual with an appendix that talks about the continuing appointment librarian faculty. This
Faculty Senate • May 7, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 7
combining issue will go to the BOT at the next meeting and any subsequent changes that come
from this merger will come to the senate in the fall before going to the BOT.
Academic Regulation Changes – Lyn Stallings
Professor Stallings stated that she is returning with the Internships section with some language
changes and the changes to the table.



Proposed by Kogod is to change the table language as “Average weekly interned hours”
– students may vary their scheduled hours as long as they meet the overall total required
at the end of the semester.
Maximum number of internship credit hours is six credits and academic units may
require less if they choose.
The instructor is responsible for the assessment of the students’ performance which may
include an assessment by the workplace supervisor. Workplace supervisor assessment
may only count for no more than half the final course grade.

The language changes for the Academic Regulations was VOTED on and was passed 22 in
favor, 0 opposed and 1 abstention.

Revised tables with two different increments were presented. Table one up to 26 hours
for 6 credits and table two 30 hours for 6 credits.

The new Table 2 with 30 average hours interned per week for 6 credits was VOTED on and was
passed 16 in favor, 5 opposed and 2 abstentions.
Amendments to Sections 5.5 Deans List
Professor Stallings stated that with the addition of SPEXs it was requested that the students in the
Washington Mentorship Program have a dean’s list notation for this program. The addition of
adding the language “degree or non-degree program during the regular term” was added to
accommodate this request. Additional language was added to address the summer term
requirements to receive this honor.
The senate VOTED and the amendment was passed unanimously in favor, 23-0-0.
Amendments to Section 5.8 Academic Probation and Dismissal
Language was written to clarify the already in use process for probation and dismissal and how a
petition is used when probation has been reached.
The senate VOTED and the amendment was passed unanimously in favor 23-0-0.
Faculty Senate • May 7, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 7
Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke stated that as per the request of the senate he gathered a committee to review the
previous document for COTC. The committee met and created the document that is different
from the previous document in that it puts the reporting requirements within the unit. This is in
compliance with section 26(c) iii of the Faculty manual that states the reporting is to be to the
dean or the head of the unit. The committee also created a draft form of two questions to be sent
to faculty annually via email.
The senate VOTED and the COTC form was approved 22 in favor 0 opposed and 1 abstention.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that for the record it was agreed that the questions for Conflict of
Interest being prepared by Osprey would be available for the senate to review as part of passing
the proposal to move forward with the process.
Professor Nelson stated that the questions would be included in the pilot over the summer.
Senate Committee Reports:
Committee on Faculty Actions – Stacey Marien
Librarian Marien stated that the first Open CFA Meeting was held last week with the updated
CFA/DAA Guidelines. Professor Aufderheide and Librarian Marien will be leaving the
committee this year. She also stated that this will be the year for academic units’ guidelines to be
reviewed by the CFA.
Professor Simpson stated that he feels that there should be some form of median available to
faculty on how people are judged.
Professor Marien stated that she would recommend addressing this issue with the new incoming
chair of the CFA.
Professor Silvia stated that this is the purpose of the individual unit guidelines and that since the
CFA will be reviewing them this upcoming year that when the individual units are reviewing the
guidelines that hard work is put into making them clear for the upcoming faculty who will be
reviewed.
Professor Simpson stated that the guidelines are important but it is the interpretation of the unit
guidelines by the CFA that is the issue and this needs to be clarified and written down.
Professor Silvia stated that the CFA does follow the guidelines provided by the units and the
extra “check” that the committee has is the representative from the unit who is a member of the
CFA.
Professor Abramson asked if he was clear in understanding that the unit guidelines are reviewed
by the CFA.
Faculty Senate • May 7, 2014 Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Professor Silvia stated that the CFA does review them and then sends their recommendations on
to the DAA. He asked Provost Bass if the guidelines ended with the DAA or continued to the
Provost.
Provost Bass stated that the final approval would be with the Provost.
Committee on Information Services – Chris Simpson
Professor Simpson stated that this past year the committee created a three person chairmanship to
improve productivity of the committee. The committee also limited the meetings to one hour,
developed a Wordpress site and created a committee listserve. The committee also made a point
to liaison with many of the other technology committees across the university.
Professor Simpson stated that the committee brought forward several resolutions to the senate
this past year to include adding student photographs to course rosters used by professors. The
committee also looked at accessibility to the AU web site. This would include learning about
classes and how to enroll in them. The committee made contributions to policies concerning
social media, “bring your own device’ (BYOD) and e-portfolio discussions. Also discussed but
tabled was a draft resolution concerning the Fair Information Policies and Practices.
Professor Simpson said that the list of topics for next year included: studies of online learning
and hybrid teaching policies and practices, developing proposals concerning Information
Services matters for next year’s university budget, review of intellectual property issues, active
participation in decisions concerning updating AU’s Learning Management Systems, follow
through on needed reforms in accessibility of AU’s public website and review of policies
concerning “big data” and data mining affecting AU students and faculty.
Committee on Faculty Grievances – Scott Parker/Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that due to the confidentiality of this committee Professor Parker
provided a report that stated that the committee received four grievances and have completed and
delivered to the president three of the four. One case did not meet the criteria for review. Three
other additional cases have been discussed as possible complaints but have not been filed at this
time.
Committee on Learning Assessment (COLA) – Joe Graf
Professor Graf stated that the university has made great strides to bring in a culture of
assessment. Participation is very wide spread amongst the units. The committee has been very
busy with Middle States and learning outcomes and has begun talking about curriculum
mapping.
Provost Bass stated that the senate has approved a template for institutional learning outcomes
and stated that there are some steps from there to begin looking at opportunities in the
Faculty Senate • May 7, 2014 Minutes
Page 5 of 7
curriculum. He asked the committee to begin prior to outcomes some initial assessment to see if
these things are available in our curriculum for all students.
Professor Graf stated yes and that the committee is working on getting the outcomes out to the
units for review and comments.
Provost Bass stated that he has asked the deans to work over the summer and bring back to the
senate quantitative literacy. This was discussed at the fall leadership retreat and there is a report
that was done by a task force. There is still not a specific recommendation to bring to the senate
but it is being drafted.
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) – Larry Engel
Professor Engel stated that the committee approved 74 programs. Another 5 programs had been
reviewed but rejected and sent back for revisions and then approved and moved forward so the
total proposals reviewed was 79. The committee did not work last summer but will be working
this summer. The committee did meet the two week turn around deadline for the majority of the
proposals and Professor Engel thanked the membership for this accomplishment.
Graduate Curriculum Committee (GCC) – Jun Lu
Professor Lu stated that the GCC has been meeting the two week approval process successfully.
The committee has reviewed 46 course proposals and 10 program proposals. 6 proposals were
approved after revisions. Of the approved programs one was an online program and 10 were new
programs. The fast track certificate approval process was approved by the senate and there was
only one certificate approved through this process. Professor Lu stated that all the members of
the committee will be returning and that Professor Lu will remain chair through the summer until
an election can take place in the fall.
Committee on Academic Budget and Benefits (CABB) – John Nolan
Professor Nolan stated that the committee met five times during the year and CABB reviewed
several benefit issues. They consisted of reviewing the health care costs and agreeing to increase
the co-pay, implementing a smoke free campus and the university began implementing the
Family Care benefit with Bright Horizons.
Professor Nolan stated that the second issue that was looked at by the committee was retention.
The issue was discussed because of how it affects the budget in terms of revenue. They met with
VP Stallings who told them there is a study in process addressing this concern. The committee
learned that there is a small group of students that leave because they are not doing well
academically but there is also a group that leaves because they do not feel challenged. Some also
leave for financial reasons. If you come across a student that is struggling with some personal
issues he reminded the senators to refer them to the Care Network.
Professor Nolan said that the third item the committee addressed was the multi-year budget
information. This information took a couple of years to obtain but we now have five year trends
Faculty Senate • May 7, 2014 Minutes
Page 6 of 7
of numbers on people’s salaries in different categories. This information is important because
almost half of our budget goes to personnel each year. We hope to have this information yearly
to watch the trend.
Professor Nolan stated that the final meeting was preparing for the upcoming year and items to
address. AY 2014-2015 is an active budget year and requested that if there are any items that you
would like to see addressed to get them to the CABB early in the fall. He stated that health care
costs will likely increase and there will be some emphasis on wellness/healthy living with
incentives such as getting annual check-ups which might reduce your co-pay. There will be a lot
of construction going on the campus, efficiency and process improvement with purchasing and
grant submission and requesting a course release for the CABB for the active budget year were
the items on the agenda for AY 2014-2015.
For the Good of the Order - Candy Nelson
Professor Eisenstadt thanked Professor Nelson for her hard work chairing the Senate this past
year. Professor Nelson thanked Provost Bass and Dean Peres for their support.
The Meeting adjourned at 4:15 PM
Faculty Senate • May 7, 2014 Minutes
Page 7 of 7
Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, and Students
of
American University
Washington, District of Columbia
By
The Evaluation Team representing the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Prepared after review of the Self Study Report and a team
visit to the campus on March 23-26, 2014
Members of the Team
Eric F. Spina, Chair
Vice Chancellor and Provost
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13244
Amar Dev Amar
Professor of Management
W. Paul Stillman School of Business
Seton Hall University
400 South Orange Ave.
South Orange, NJ 07059
David N. Rahni
Interim Associate Provost for Academic Affairs
Professor of Chemistry
Pace University
1 Pace Plaza
New York, NY 10038
Marin Clarkberg
Director, Institutional Research and Planning
Cornell University
441 Day Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Richard I. Resch
Higher Education Consultant
Resch Consulting
145 Hicks Street, B34
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Jeffrey L. Gray
Senior Vice President for Student Affairs
Fordham University
443 East Fordham Road, Keating Hall Room 100
Bronx, NY 10458
Gloria Grant Roberson
Professor
Adelphi University
South Avenue, Swirbul Library
Garden City, NY 11530
Paula Hooper Mayhew
Director of Core Program Assessment
Professor of English and Comparative Studies
Fairleigh Dickinson University, NJ
1000 River Road
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Ronald J. Paprocki
Senior Vice President Administration and Finance
Chief Financial Officer
University of Rochester
208 Wallis Hall, P. O. Box 270023
Rochester, NY 14627-0023
AT THE TIME OF THE VISIT
President of the University:
Dr. Cornelius M. Kerwin
Chief Academic Officer
Dr. Scott Bass
Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Jeffrey A. Sine
Partner, The Raine Group LLC
New York, NY
2
Table of Contents
Section I. Context and Nature of the Visit
4
Section II. Affirmation of Continued Compliance with Requirements of Affiliation
5
Section III. Compliance with Federal Requirements; Issues Relative to State Regulatory or
Other Accrediting Agency Requirements
5
Section IV. Evaluation Overview
5
Section V. Compliance with Accreditation Standards
1. Advancing and Supporting the Mission of American University (Standards 1, 2, 3, 7)
2. Leadership, Shared Governance, and Administration (Standards 4, 5)
3. Faculty (Standard 10)
4. Admitting, Supporting, and Retaining Undergraduates (Standards 8, 9)
5. Undergraduate Education (Standards 11, 12, 14)
6. Graduate and Professional Education (Standards 8, 11, 14)
7. Other Educational Initiatives (Standard 13)
7
7
10
11
14
16
19
21
Section VI. Conclusion
23
3
Section I. Context and Nature of the Visit
A. Institutional Overview
American University (AU) is a private doctoral research university located in Washington, D.C. It was
chartered by Congress in 1893 as a graduate institution to train and support public servants, and was
founded under the auspices of the United Methodist Church; it began offering undergraduate education
in 1925. Today AU has seven schools/colleges: Arts & Sciences, Communication, Public Affairs,
International Service, Business (the Kogod School), Law (Washington College of Law), and Professional
and Extended Studies. American’s mission has remained true to its roots and is expressed in its
“Statement of Common Purpose,” which identifies its distinctiveness as a university that turns ideas into
action, and action into service, by emphasizing the arts & sciences and connecting them to issues of
contemporary public affairs writ large (government, communication, business, law, international
service).
The University developed a strong and ambitious strategic plan in 2008 under the direction of its
relatively new president, Neil Kerwin. The plan, “American University in the Next Decade: Leadership
for a Changing World,” was developed through very broad consultation and is a living document that is
assessed and updated annually. Through strong leadership from President Kerwin and Provost Bass, and
with broad support, AU has undergone substantial change consistent with the Plan and in response to
both the changing world and emerging opportunity. Key initiatives have been undertaken—and
progress realized—in areas including reformed and more transparent governance processes, the culture
of assessment, the size and composition of the faculty, greater expectations for and support of faculty
scholarship, and diversity of the undergraduate student body, and these have changed American
University in important ways.
Given the central role of the strategic plan and the relatively fundamental changes that have occurred at
AU, the University chose to use the Middle States decennial accreditation process as an opportunity to
take stock and obtain external perspectives of the progress made and the choice points facing the
University and higher education more broadly. As such, the review is a comprehensive one, with
standards grouped functionally as is our evaluation in the narrative presented in Sections IV and V.
B. Scope of Institution at the Time of the Evaluation
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Degree Levels: Postsecondary Certificate, Associate’s, Bachelor’s, Post-Baccalaureate
Certificate, Master’s, Doctor’s—Professional Practice, Doctor’s—Research/Scholarship
Branch Campuses: None
Active Additional Locations: Freddie Mac, McLean, VA (see Section V.6 for a report)
Distance Learning: Yes
Self Study Process and Report
The self study was shaped by the implementation of the University’s strategic plan,
launched in 2008 but updated regularly and actively used as guidance for strategic
decisions. The self-study process, taking the plan as its point of departure, was very
4
inclusive of all American University constituencies. The Self Study Steering Committee
and its working groups held numerous meetings on campus in assembling their reports.
The institution opted for a comprehensive review given the significant transformations
that have occurred over the past five years.
Section II. Affirmation of Continued Compliance with Requirements of Affiliation
Based on a review of the self-study report, interviews, the certification statement supplied by the
institution, and a review of other institutional documents, the team affirms that the institution
continues to meet the requirements of affiliation in “Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education.”
Section III. Compliance with Federal Requirements; Issues Relative to State Regulatory or
Other Accrediting Agency Requirements
Based on the separate verification of compliance with accreditation-relevant provisions of the Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008 and, as necessary, review of the self-study, certification by the
institution, other institutional documents, and/or interviews, the team affirms that the institution meets
all relevant and state regulations and the requirements of other Department of Education-recognized
accreditors.
Section IV. Evaluation Overview
Given the major transformations that have transpired at American, the University elected to have a
comprehensive accreditation review. The site visit team organized its review and evaluation to match
the structure of the Self Study, in which the Middle States Standards were grouped as follows:
1. Advancing and Supporting the Mission of American University (Standards 1, 2, 3, 7)
2. Leadership, Shared Governance, and Administration (Standards 4, 5)
3. Faculty (Standard 10)
4. Admitting, Supporting, and Retaining Undergraduates (Standards 8,9)
5. Undergraduate Education (Standards 11, 12, 14)
6. Graduate and Professional Education (Standards 8, 11, 14)
7. Other Educational Initiatives (Standard 13)
Section V is organized around these seven chapters and contains the explicit statement of compliance.
In what follows in this section and the next, Accomplishments, Suggestions, and Recommendations are
bolded and designated with [A], [S], and [R], respectively.
American University—inclusive of its trustees, administrative leadership, faculty, staff, students, and
alumni—has been deeply engaged in a transformation exercise since 2008. The institution’s “Statement
of Common Purpose” remains the same, as does its fundamental nature as a research university with a
strong leaning toward the social sciences and related professional programs, and in its focus on
5
providing a high-touch, high-impact experience for its students. Almost everything else about the
University has changed based upon the ambitions of the leadership, a living strategic plan deeply rooted
in AU’s values and realities, widespread benchmarking, the willingness of the faculty and staff to assess
their programs and activities and then modify them, and a healthy dose of creativity. Overall, the
transformation exercise has been an extremely successful one, with stronger board governance, an
exceptional leadership team including many new deans, a larger and demonstrably stronger faculty, a
transparent and widely supported change in the mix of faculty, greater support for research-active
faculty, a more diverse undergraduate student body that is now reflective of the values of the institution
and more consistent with the demographic future of the nation. The entire American University
community is to be commended for its efforts and its success; American University is stronger, more
vibrant, more relevant, and better positioned as a result of what has transpired over the past six
years. [A1]
The changes at AU have been significant and rapid, especially relative to the usual pace in higher
education. Some of the changes are substantive enough that the institution must be particularly
attentive to their sustainability and to unforeseen deleterious consequences, some of which can play
out over a longer period of time than expected. The ultimate success of the “new” American University
requires strong monitoring, assessment, and evaluation in several key areas and we therefore make the
following three recommendations:
• In light of the changing demographics of the undergraduate student body, the University
as a whole—inclusive of Campus Life, Academic Affairs, Enrollment Services, schools and
colleges, and business units— should carefully consider how best to support the more
diverse student body and ensure that its engagement in AU’s special opportunities, sense
of belonging, degree of satisfaction, and retention and graduation rates is carefully
monitored and regularly assessed. [R1]
•
The increased investment in the Scholar-Teacher ideal brings with it greater expectations
for scholarly impact and, as a result, the University should establish clear goals and
detailed assessment protocols at the individual and the unit levels to ensure that the
University’s expectations are being realized. [R2]
•
The aggressive move to a new mix of tenure-line and term faculty also bears attention and
careful tracking both for long-serving faculty and those who will enter American
University under this new paradigm. AU should monitor the evolving faculty perceptions
and degree of satisfaction in this new environment and make adjustments in the model as
necessary over time. [R3]
AU’s reward for its hard work and its accomplishments is simply more of the same. American University
is more agile now than ever before. It needs to be still more agile. American is more entrepreneurial
now than ever before. It needs to be still more entrepreneurial. American is more interdisciplinary now
than ever before. It needs to be still more interdisciplinary. The world in which we live and the higher6
education sector are both increasing their rate of change, and American must continue to plan carefully
and act boldly. The University is very well-positioned to do so successfully and, as it does, it is
encouraged to continue to innovate by fully unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit of its administrators,
faculty, and staff. This is particularly important in areas that can increase and diversify revenue while
also enhancing AU visibility, including:
• Advancement/development, where greater investment and broader buy-in will be critical in the
decades ahead;
• Professional graduate and executive education, where a more intentional approach that blends
central coordination, local planning and execution, and appropriate incentives can provide both
revenue opportunities and greater exposure for AU’s distinctive academic strengths; and
• Science-driven sponsored research, where an evolving “science and policy” strategy can
increase externally sponsored research and enhance visibility in key areas (see Section V.7 and
[S7]).
The Middle States visiting team has been uniformly impressed by the integrity with which American
University conducts its business and, as an example, with the manner in which trustees, administrators,
faculty, and staff have conducted themselves during this Middle States decennial review process. It is
well-known that major ethical lapses in the (previous) president’s office were discovered shortly after
the last decennial accreditation review. All reports of the response of the institution at the time are
exemplary, especially the actions of the Board of Trustees and the then-newly appointed interim
president. The lessons from this traumatic event seem to be deeply ingrained in the fabric of American
University today and the restructuring of the Board of Trustees and their embrace of a more active and
transparent fiduciary role have set the tone for expectations of all members of the community to
conduct themselves with integrity. There is no evidence of any lapses in institutional integrity at AU;
rather, there is significant evidence to the contrary, that AU has strong values and high integrity: in its
recruiting of students, in its treatment of faculty and staff, in ensuring that all members of the University
community have a voice in key planning exercises, and in its internal and external reporting.
Section V. Compliance with Accreditation Standards
In the team’s judgment, the institution appears to meet Standards 1-14. Evidence and findings for
each standard, grouped by chapter as done in American University’s Self-Study Report, are provided
below, as are accomplishments, suggestions, and recommendations. Comments on Standard 6
(Integrity) are offered above in Section IV.
1. Advancing and Supporting the Mission of American University
Standard 1: Mission and Goals
Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, Institutional Renewal
Standard 3: Institutional Resources
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
7
Since the period of the Board of Trustees governance reform in 2005-2006, American University has
been engaged in a period of concentrated self-examination and institutional assessment in the broadest
sense. The Strategic Plan, initiated by newly inaugurated President Kerwin in 2007 and approved in
2008, was one of several initiatives designed to better articulate institutional goals and the standards
against which American University would measure itself. Over the next several years, American
University rewrote the faculty manual, overhauled and streamlined academic policies, revised tenure
and promotion guidelines, hired approximately half of the current faculty, and implemented forward
looking interdisciplinary initiatives through the AU2030 process. This impressive investment in
institutional improvement was accomplished while maintaining the University’s financial health.
Indeed, AU’s credit rating, a sign of financial strength, was upgraded by Moody’s to A1 in the midst of
this progressive reconfiguration and during a period in which the global economic crisis and its
aftermath had negative consequences for many institutions. The current leadership team has not
allowed the institution’s uniqueness to be a roadblock to benchmarking endeavors. In identifying itself
as a “college-centered research university,” American University seeks to better understand its position
and its peer set within the landscape of higher education.
Given the numerous changes in processes, programs, and leadership within the University; dynamic
market conditions; and lingering softness in the economy, it is especially appropriate that American
considers the strategic plan as a “living document” to be refreshed on a biennial basis. American
University’s constituencies seem to have good familiarity with the strategic plan, and are involved in
thinking about how to bring goals into fruition. The fact that strategic plan objectives are incorporated
into the budget is noted and appreciated by campus constituencies. American University’s strategic
plan has penetrated all levels of the University to a remarkable degree. [A2]
The University has adequate financial resources to support its programs. The operating budget and
reserves are important components of its financial underpinnings. Endowment performance has been
good over the past decade, and the University targets transfers from operations into quasi endowment
annually.
American University is characterized by sound financial management. The University has in place
relevant management staff and financial controls, and no material weaknesses have been noted in
recent external audit management letters. There is an ongoing track record of positive operating
margins, which has enabled the University to transfer an amount equal to 1-2% to quasi endowment
annually. Budgets are developed conservatively with several categories of “safety” contingencies, which
mitigate risk of short-term budget shortfalls. The institution has been able to accumulate reserves which
also provide stabilization funds.
The University’s facilities planning is guided by a Master Plan. A multi-year capital plan encompasses
projects to expand and renew facilities. AU is in the midst of a program in which academic spaces are
being renovated and/or replaced. Funds are allocated annually for facilities renewal (deferred
maintenance), and a program to renovate residence halls has been undertaken over a ten-year period. It
is widely understood that Instructional science laboratories are in need of upgrading. Additional needs
8
in the facilities domain are recognized by the University and remain to be funded. This points to the
need for careful prioritization and focus on fundraising. [S1]
The budget process is well understood, and resource allocation is aligned with the strategic plan. The
process is transparent with opportunities for constituent input at many levels. Careful budget
management has enabled the University to provide seed funding for new initiatives and other priorities
identified in the strategic plan. Allocations of funds in support of strategic plan objectives are clearly
delineated in the president’s budget message document.
The culture of American University is clearly data-driven, and this is evidenced at many layers of the
institution. As one member of the American staff described, “Nothing is done without data.” The
President and the Provost are both eager consumers of data and regularly initiate important
conversations with their reports based on key performance indicators. Much of their information is
supplied to them by the highly effective and efficient office of Institutional Research and Assessment,
which also provides information to other academic leaders in the units, and works directly with
individual faculty members to support the assessment of student learning outcomes. The Office of
Institutional Research and Assessment performs an extraordinary service to American, delivering
information to many constituencies across the campus with sophistication, nuance, and a high degree
of efficiency. [A3] The data-driven culture at AU is further enabled by long-standing, widely used, and
functional data reporting systems. A nascent business intelligence (BI) reporting system holds some
promise to extend and enhance the use of data by diverse decision-makers across campus, though it
may be important to scale and direct the BI effort such that it is clearly focused on the most relevant
information needed for effective planning and to inform key operational decisions.
The experience of American University over the last decade is testimony to the fact that an
investment by the leadership in planning and process improvement yields real fruit in academic
quality and the delivery of the academic mission of the University. [A4]
While American University’s dependency on tuition for revenue meant that American did not feel a keen
impact from the market declines in 2008-2009, such a high degree of tuition dependency ultimately
limits American University’s reach. It is appropriate that the University identified revenue diversification
as a key strategic objective and has made some modest progress in that area. Alumni giving has
increased, and research funding seems to be edging in the right direction. That said, both the
development and research areas of the University have historically underperformed, and recent
progress has been incremental rather than transformative.
As AU seeks to diversify its sources and as it succeeds in its ascendancy as a research institution, the
endowment will play an increasingly important role. As a precondition of endowment growth, the
development function should become an institutional priority and become more fully integrated into
the fabric of the University. [S2] A strategy of leveraging an entrepreneurial faculty and their academic
leadership in the advancement effort should be encouraged.
9
The University should continuously evaluate its resource allocation processes to ensure that there are
appropriate incentives for the academic units to engage in the kinds of entrepreneurial activity that
will advance programmatic goals and help increase revenue diversity. [S3]
As the University continues to evolve, care must be given to ensure that the nature and quality of
support services are appropriate to the new environment. [S4]
2. Leadership, Shared Governance, and Administration
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
Standard 5: Administration
Following the presidential transition in 2005-2006, AU revised its governance structure to be more
“effective, transparent and participatory.” [A5] A comprehensive review took place facilitated by a
representative of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB). As a result, the University’s system of
governance is now well defined through its by-laws, organization chart, academic regulations, and
faculty manual and is transparent and participatory through its practices of communication and
committee structures. A revitalized board, supported by new leadership in the appointments of
President Kerwin and Provost Bass, has refocused on its fiduciary responsibility and has enhanced its
engagement with the campus community. The board, the president, and the provost are leading
American University to a higher level of quality and recognition as a college-centered research
university. To ensure continued board renewal, it should consider instituting term limits. [S5]
The Board’s committee structure is comprehensive and robust. A member of the president’s cabinet is
assigned as a resource person for each committee with additional staff serving as needed. Student
representation and attendance has been encouraged. The Board Statement of Commitment and
Responsibilities makes clear AU’s expectations of board members and a conflict of interest policy
elaborates on these expectations.
Representatives from the deans, the Faculty Senate, the Student Government, the Graduate Leadership
Council, the Alumni Association, the Staff Council, and the Student Bar Association serve as resources on
board committees in addition to the two faculty members and one student who serve as non-voting
members of the board. The broad representation of University constituencies in governance
contributes to a campus culture of commitment to AU’s advancement in quality and reputation. [A6]
In 2012, continuing its commitment to assess its effectiveness periodically, the Board conducted a
comprehensive self-evaluation with the assistance of the AGB, which resulted in a list of proposed
improvements in structure and trustee engagement, to have board and committee meetings focus more
on strategic rather than operational issues, and for moving to a higher level of board performance. The
Trusteeship Committee has been following up on the recommendations to ensure they are being
addressed. The comprehensive self-evaluation is scheduled to take place every five years while annual
evaluation of individual trustees continues.
10
The Board is concerned with its own diversity in terms of experience, age, gender, race, ethnicity,
comfort with technology, and geographic representation related to the University’s changing sources of
students. The Trusteeship committee is responsible for orienting new trustees which it does through a
voluntary mentoring system and assistance from the president’s cabinet. The Board also works with the
president and cabinet on succession planning with a current focus on reviewing the responsibilities of
the CFO position and filling that vacancy.
The Board carried out a comprehensive assessment of the president’s performance in 2010 and this is
planned every five years in connection with the renewal of the president’s contract. Interim reviews are
carried out annually. Internal and external auditing activities and processes have been enhanced
including a quarterly audit of the president’s expenses.
The openness and transparency of governance at AU has been carried forward consistently under the
leadership of President Kerwin since he took office. [A7] As part of the Board’s initiative to be more
engaged with the campus, trustees interact more regularly with the faculty and staff and are noticeable
in their attendance at campus events. The deans and academic leadership express confidence in the
President and Provost and value the role of the Faculty Senate, which seems highly effective.
The new leadership and leadership team combines those with institutional knowledge and new hires
who bring fresh outside perspectives. They have led institutional renewal through a new strategic plan,
developed through an open and participatory process, and its subsequent implementation, including
special projects such as AU2030 and the Facilities Master Plan.
A revamped Performance Management Program for staff was introduced in fall 2012 to be phased-in
over a couple of years. The objective of the program is to link more effectively annual performance
review with achievement of strategic plan objectives. Innovations in 2012 included performance goal
setting taking into account three levels of staff and a competency dictionary. The matrix of core and job
competencies across the three staff levels provides a clear and transparent structure that is consistent
across the University. Staff development and training are being enhanced with the support of the
information technology area and staff feel engaged in the advancement of the University. Staff turnover
has been reduced from 29% to 16% in the past three years. The University should continue to track
staff turnover and monitor the effectiveness of the revised annual staff performance review process.
[S6]
3. Faculty
Standard 10: Faculty
President Kerwin is an AU alumnus, a lifelong faculty member, and the former provost; he has worked
diligently with Provost Bass and other senior leaders to grow the size and productivity of the faculty and
better position them to conduct scholarship and achieve teaching excellence that can in turn increase
the ranking, visibility, and impact of the University. Since his arrival, the Provost—an experienced and
respected academic leader—has worked with the President, deans, and faculty to spearhead the
11
articulation and implementation of a variety of policies and initiatives that are consistent with the
strategic plan and have led to real transformation. This process has been marked by open and
transparent dialog, shared governance, and consensus building. It has also been aided by a restructuring
of the Office of Academic Affairs, which now includes a number of [new] vice provosts with specific
areas of responsibility: academic affairs (led by the senior vice provost and dean of faculty),
undergraduate studies, undergraduate enrollment, and graduate studies and research.
The full-time faculty cohort is comprised of 495 tenure-line and 353 term faculty, a total increase of 31%
since 2008 (+16% tenure-line, +58% term). The University’s presence in Washington provides an
invaluable source of term faculty and adjunct professionals from the government and the corporate
sectors, who add considerably to the experiential and “real-life” learning for the students. Most, but not
all, of AU’s adjuncts are now represented by SEIU.
The overarching tasks pursued at AU have been to advance the faculty toward the “scholar-teacher
ideal,” enhance the infrastructure for supporting and promoting high-impact faculty scholarship and
teaching excellence, and focus faculty hiring on strategic goals including diversity objectives and crossunit coherence. The effort encapsulated in Project AU2030 to advance AU’s research and academic
programs by identifying emerging interdisciplinary areas and incentivizing faculty hiring has positioned
AU well to hire leading faculty and increase the relevance of their efforts nationally and internationally.
While it is projected that such new faculty hiring will be carried forward at a slower rate than the past
five years, the philosophy of interdisciplinary hiring and building critical mass around strategic University
priorities seems to have taken root. The provost and his staff will need to carefully track the success of
AU2030 so that adjustments can be made as necessary to ensure the vision is achieved.
In the effort to strive for the scholar-teacher ideal, the institution has raised expectations for faculty
with respect to high-impact scholarship, creative work, external funding, and teaching excellence. The
newly adopted reduction in teaching load for research-active faculty has been central in providing
additional time for scholarship and the development of funded programs, as well as serving as a visible
and meaningful signal of the institution’s commitment to and expectations of the faculty. The reduced
teaching load was made possible through an increased allocation of courses to term faculty—hired
almost exclusively for teaching and service purposes—and their number has grown substantially. The
term faculty members appear to be highly valued by the administration, the tenure-line faculty, and the
students, and their overall integration into the University and its faculty is a national model.
While the quality of teaching and learning is addressed in two other sections in this report, namely the
undergraduate and graduate education sections, it is worth noting here that the enhanced approach to
hybrid teaching, development of learning outcomes and assessment tools tailored to specific disciplines,
the revamping of the honors program, a revised and robust general education program, and
undergraduate research mentorship are some of the major outcomes of the teaching reduction and
higher faculty engagement in curricular reforms. Another outcome of the teaching load reduction
appears to be an increase in annual R&D funding, with AU’s ranking moving from 376 nationally in 2003
to 204 in 2011.
12
The adaptability of some of the senior tenured faculty to new high-impact, high-productivity scholarship
expectations has been challenging, and this might be addressed by giving them one-time course
reductions or other support to enable them to enhance their teaching effectiveness or to contribute
more deeply in service as part of key University initiatives. AU has used Academic Analytics since 2008
as one way to evaluate faculty scholarly productivity, and the deans and administration are striving to
ensure that all departments and programs have strong bases and metrics for faculty evaluation.
The collaborative development—including faculty, the administration, and trustees—and adoption of
the new Faculty Manual by the Faculty Senate (2010 & 2011) that codifies among many topics the
tenure and promotion protocols for both tenure-line and term faculty, is commendable. [A8]
The average teaching load, reduced from five to four courses for all tenure-track faculty and for
tenured faculty active in research, is a milestone to allow more time for higher impact scholarship;
[A9]
The American University Board of Trustees has remained committed to ensuring that faculty salary is
commensurate with the AAUP-1 level for private non-unionized universities. The administration also
tracks and compares AU salaries by faculty rank with a number of select private benchmark universities
without medical or engineering schools. The average FT faculty salary has progressed despite the
financial challenges faced by the nation since 2008. Faculty salary (Fall 2012) is among the highest in the
group of benchmark institutions reported, up to 12% higher in certain disciplines and ranks when
compared to the benchmark or AAUP-1 level. The Faculty Senate Budget and Benefits Committee
engages regularly with the administration to discuss salary and benefits matters and discuss other
faculty concerns. The current 2014-15 budget cycle has reserved a 2.5% merit pool for faculty raises.
Special budget funds are also earmarked to address market-driven compensations for adjuncts, term
faculty, and promotion increases.
Overall faculty satisfaction is rising, as illustrated by a 44% response rate to a recent faculty satisfaction
survey compared to the prior rate of 29% and the actual job satisfaction, which has increased from 69%
to 78% in recent years.
Whereas the leadership is cognizant of, and committed to, recruiting, nurturing and retaining a diverse
faculty body that mirrors the increasingly diverse student population, this remains a work in progress,
but one to which there is a deep commitment. For instance, the University hosted a faculty retreat
three hours away in Fall 2012, where more than 300 faculty participated voluntarily to discuss diversity
and devise ways to enhance inclusion. This was followed up by a January 2013 conference on the same
subject. A range of diversity objectives intended to attract, nurture and retain a diverse faculty body is
a strategic emphasis in faculty searches.
The changes in the composition of the faculty, the increased level of support made available to them,
and enhanced expectations for their scholarly impact are all highly significant and lead to the two
overarching recommendations on the faculty presented in Section IV, [R2] and [R3].
13
4. Admitting, Supporting, and Retaining Undergraduates
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention (undergraduate)
Standard 9: Student Support Services (undergraduate)
Enrollment Services and Student Support Services appear to provide a good, standard menu of programs
and services organized to meet the needs of the students of American University. AU made clear in
their Self-Study Report that they chose to highlight and emphasize a selection of offices and services
that work with students, and the measures they take to support their success.
There is evidence of basic planning and assessment activity taking place in key enrollment and student
support areas, most specifically through (a) the Undergraduate Marketing and Enrollment Task Force
(UMET) and the final 2012 report it released entitled “Creating a Culture of Inclusivity”, (b) the
development of annual reports in each area, and (c) the administration of surveys designed to obtain
student feedback and outcomes data, ranging from the Campus Climate Survey to the National Survey
on Student Engagement (NSSE). A review of the Campus Climate Survey results from May 2013 offers
evidence of basic utilization and satisfaction assessment with campus services and other areas of the
University. A review of the NSSE survey results provides evidence of the following outcomes relative to
the campus environment: (1) the campus environment provides the support students need to help
them succeed academically (Quite a Bit & Very Much): freshmen response: 86%, senior response: 75%;
(2) the campus environment provides the support students need to strive socially (Quite a Bit & Very
Much): freshmen response: 45%, senior response: 33%. While these scores appear modest relative to
benchmarks, the site visit revealed the presence of a staff committed to progress. The enrollment
section of Chapter 5 notes mission-related progress in the recruitment and enrollment of increasing
numbers of underrepresented students of color (7.9% in fall 2008 to 18% in fall 2013), and Pell eligible
students (7.7% in fall 2008 to 19% in fall 2013), all of which seems to flow from the well done analysis,
decisions and recommendations provided by the Undergraduate Marketing and Enrollment Task Force.
AU is to be commended for the great and purposeful progress they have made in the recruitment and
enrollment of increasing numbers of underrepresented students of color and Pell-eligible students.
[A10] Results are also noted in the area of transfer recruitment, and the recruitment of students from
distant markets, notably southern and western markets in response to changing demographics.
While it is clear that many of the traditional student support services are made available to American
University students, and that there are assessment initiatives underway in some of these areas, what is
less evident is: (1) a sustained program of assessment across all areas of enrollment and student support
services that is focused on obtaining more specific outcomes data related to student satisfaction and the
effectiveness of services and programs in meeting student needs, and (2) a more general visibility of
certain key areas of student support services that are important to student success and satisfaction. A
third observation that was highlighted in Chapter 5 of the self-study report and recommendations
merits emphasis here: the increased pressure on all support areas for at-risk populations given their
now larger representation at AU.
14
On the first point: while it is not evident in the Self-Study that a broad-based culture of assessment has
been developed within all of the different administrative areas of enrollment or student support
services, discussion with the administrative leaders on campus gives confidence in their quality and
indicates that there is emphasis and activity taking place in the assessment arena. Related to the first
observation, the second point reflects the disparity between the questions posed for the community as
part of the self-study design and the fact that roughly 50% of the student support services offered by AU
were not addressed in the self-study report itself, including key areas such as student activities, athletics
and performing arts. Certainly, these areas can make important mission-related contributions to
student learning, quality of life, satisfaction, and retention. The self-study omissions raise the question
as to the level of emphasis and attention given to these areas by the institution and the level of support
they receive in the institutional planning process, and without prejudice, the team simply notes here the
critical role they play at American and the quality with which they are being delivered.
Finally, the self-study notes the changing demographic make-up of the student body, while at the same
time offering several observations related to retention pressures and the identification and support of
at-risk students. The enrollment metrics and retention figures cited in the report are solid, but the latter
are beginning to show signs of slight deterioration that will require focused monitoring and support. In
wide-ranging discussion with staff and students, it appears that there could be a number of underlying
variables contributing to these trends, including but not limited to the following: (1) student financial
challenges; (2) uneven academic advising that is decentralized and that might benefit from greater
coordination; (3) various initiatives that seek to identify early warning signs for at-risk students that do
not ‘feel’ coordinated to students; and (4) service-intensive needs of a changing population and a
growing residential one. Indeed, the students we met with uniformly cited financial challenges and
financial aid as the number one reason that students leave American, and they frequently emphasized
the unevenness of decentralized academic advising as a concern. The students were very
complimentary of the Campus Life staff and units, noting the responsiveness of these areas and their
willingness to listen to their concerns and take them seriously. They were less complimentary of other
areas of the University in this respect. Staff noted the need for greater coordination among the various
initiatives that seek to identify at-risk students, and there was general recognition of the intense service
demands presented by a changing student population that will become increasing residential. It seems
that there is work to be done to ensure that the institution will be able to meet these demands.
Accordingly, and in line with the recommendations made in Section IV [R1], American will need to: (1)
plan appropriately for the intense student service, campus life, and infrastructure demands that will
continue to be presented by a changing student population that will become increasing residential in
the coming years, and (2) provide stronger institutional support for and commitment to the facilitation
and creation of a culture of assessment in the enrollment and campus life areas, the overarching goal of
which should be to obtain more specific outcomes data related to the effectiveness of programs in
supporting student success, satisfaction, retention and achievement, as well as supporting and
advancing the mission of American University.
As American continues with the commendable progress made on the recruitment of underrepresented
students and students from distant markets, both of which are strategies that are responsive to
15
changing demographics and market conditions, they are also encouraged to pay careful attention to the
underlying retention trends and the issues that may be contributing to these. We encourage the
identification and monitoring of the contributing issues and then action to address them accordingly.
This includes the vigilant pursuit of their own recommendations cited in this chapter of their self-study,
specifically the affordability issue and the use of financial aid in the recruitment and retention process,
and the identification and support of at-risk student populations.
5. Undergraduate Education
Standard 11: Educational Offerings (undergraduate)
Standard 12: General Education
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
Chapter 6 of the Self-Study, “Undergraduate Education,” covers general education programs, “high
impact” co-curricular educational programs (internships, study abroad, etc.), and support for
assessment and learning outcomes. These aspects of undergraduate education have been developed to
be seamlessly coordinated and provide an unusually comprehensive and carefully-monitored learning
experience for students at American University.
The General Education program (GenEd) follows the historical five-area distribution that reflects and
helps to shape benchmarked undergraduate curricula across the U.S. It focuses on creative arts,
traditions that shape the Western World, global and cross-cultural perspectives, natural sciences, and
humanities. Students must successfully complete ten courses from a large number offered under the
GenEd designation, two from each area. In revisiting General Education in the context of the entire
undergraduate experience, the American University faculty followed the advice offered as part of the
Association of American Colleges & Universities’ (AAC&U) LEAP initiative (Liberal Education and
America’s Promise), the nationally recognized undergraduate revitalization program that also guided
AU’s work on “high-impact” educational opportunities. Envisioning the GenEd program in the context of
LEAP, the faculty followed the suggestion that advocates for a “common intellectual experience that
includes a set of common courses or vertically organized general education program that includes
advanced integrative studies and/or required participation in a learning community.”
Once the outlines of GenEd were in place, AU developed eight learning outcomes for the program.
Assessment centers on these outcomes, that when achieved provide students with “intellectual skills
and resources that help you to understand the complex dynamics of an increasingly connected global
environment” (as described on the Provost’s website). The expectations for undergraduate learning
outcomes include the successful development of aesthetic sensibilities, communication skills, critical
inquiry, diverse perspectives and experiences, innovative thinking, ethical reasoning, information
literacy, and quantitative literacy. Course-based assessment of these outcomes are enhanced and
enriched by correlation with the assessment of student involvement in co-curricular “high impact”
programs (see below) in which nearly all undergraduates participate.
16
To provide entering students with an overview of what they should expect at AU, the faculty in GenEd
have authorized the creation of a website highlighting specific information that a student needs to know
before entering the program and why it will be central to his or her educational experience at American
University. This electronic resource is supported in print by an impressive GenEd booklet. On the
website, the five GenEd areas are separately and fully explored with clearly-stated learning objectives,
lists of GenEd courses are included and are up-to-date, and resources for students and faculty are made
available. The site is a model of how to explain and highlight a series of learning offerings and
expectations for learning outcomes in accessible and useful ways.
In support of student proficiency in writing and math, the faculty assesses both writing and math early in
a student’s entry into the University. The writing program has a strong assessment history and will join
with the Education Testing Service (ETS) to develop a new computer-based writing assessment plan.
Math assessment after student placement seems to be based on the results of perceptual studies. The
Self-Study observes that “General Education courses frequently are amenable to innovation, allowing
librarians to test new pedagogical ideas or trends in the profession.” This statement says excellent
things about the devotion to innovation found among the GenEd faculty and to the hard work and
flexibility of the librarians, as well. The General Education Program, faculty-developed and monitored,
is commended for its scope and depth and for serving as the basis for University-wide learning
assessment. [A11]
There 68 majors and 70 minors at AU including new programs in public health; environmental science;
Arabic studies; business, language and culture; and computational science. More than half of the class
graduates with more than one major and/or minor. As one might expect of a university situated in
Washington D.C. and sporting a proud reputation in educational programs that support international
service, public policy and public affairs, international law, and human rights, the most popular majors
and minors are in these noted areas of study.
Perceptual studies of student responses to the NSSE showed that students were below their peers in the
percentage who say that the campus environment emphasizes studying. AU therefore instituted a new
set of academic regulations in 2012 that includes: limiting the pass/fail option, reducing the maximum
length of probation, revising the limits on GenEd completion, and raising the GPA to be eligible for
dean’s list and Latin honors. The results of these changes were not explored in the Self-Study and may
not yet have been directly assessed at the time of its submission, but anecdotal evidence suggests that,
as regards general education in particular, the change that requires students to complete the program
(10 courses in 5 domains) by the end of the sophomore year has had a salutary effect.
American University coordinates its course and program offerings with co-curricular activities with a
thoroughness that attests to its commitment to promoting community service and to creating
opportunities to understand diverse perspectives. Undergraduate students have the chance to
experience its “high impact” experiential programs including student learning communities that were
developed to enhance practical skills and essential knowledge. University College provides small-group
living-learning opportunities to a group of new students (400 in Fall 2012). Small, 20-student classes are
17
taught by full-time faculty in University College, and each class is mentored by an upperclassman
associate who lives in the same residential community. Since the application rate continues to grow, AU
has created the University College Cooperative (UCC). Much like University College, this living-learning
opportunity is anchored in an academic course, some linked to majors, and the students are housed in
the same hall as the original University College cohort. The 2012 NSSE results are positive for livinglearning communities and are praised in focus groups; they fare well in program evaluations, too. UC
earned an award from the admissions, orientation and first-year experience group of the college
personnel profession association for “Outstanding Collaborative Initiative” in 2012.
The Honors Program at AU celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2009. In 2011, it was reviewed and found
to need revision. The new Honors Program will welcome 45 students and be instituted in fall, 2014. The
program was developed to focus on problem-solving courses that integrate several disciplines (as
suggested by LEAP) and include early engagement in research, professional experience, innovation,
connection to faculty, and exceptional development of oral and written skills. The Honors Program is an
important example of innovation and change starting from within the context of a time-honored, but
outdated, program.
The Frederick Douglass Distinguished Scholars Program provides support to exceptional undergraduates,
many of whom are first-generation-to-university. Besides financial support, FDDS scholars are given
individualized time and attention by the director and faculty, and these students are widely seen as
leaders on campus.
Following LEAP’s focus on the importance of internships to the undergraduate educational experience,
87 percent of AU’s graduating students in 2013 participated in an internship as an undergraduate.
Protocols for placement and monitoring are well in place; employer evaluations are administered by the
Career Center. AU graduates figure significantly amongst Presidential Management Fellows and the
Peace Corps. According to the Self-Study, the changing socioeconomic diversity of the AU
undergraduate body has created a cohort of students who are challenged to meet the costs associated
with unpaid internships. The University is working to address this issue, including through fundraising.
Again following a LEAP suggestion, AU has created programs that give students the opportunity to both
apply what they are learning in real-world settings and to reflect their service experiences in the
classroom. These opportunities are many and far-ranging, from job-shadowing to the creation of oral
histories to the support of service-learning trips abroad, and more. On-campus undergraduate research
experiences are another LEAP-endorsed practice that appears to have been embraced by American.
The Self Study reports that all programs in which AU students participate abroad for academic credit
have been evaluated by AU as meeting University-commensurate academic standards and goals. As of
2011-12, 72% of undergraduates studied abroad during their time at American, an enviable participation
rate. Some academic units have partnerships abroad for undergraduate experiences, particularly in the
Far East; there are opportunities in Cuba, India, and Jamaica, among others, and there are new and
noteworthy opportunities for study abroad in the summer. A site visit to the AU program in Brussels
18
verified the high quality of their international programs, and made clear both the innovative nature of
the program and the value added to student learning and toward strong outcomes.
Student learning assessment is an integral part of institutional assessment at AU and, in 2013 AU
drafted a set of University-wide learning outcomes. The evidence suggests that learning outcomes and
assessment are part of program and course development and are routinely submitted for review; from
2011 to 2013, several hundred specific changes were made as a result of assessment. Administrative
actions were used to follow up and standardize instructional practices across sections and other followup activities were connected to curriculum changes. In other words, the impact of assessment of
learning outcomes was both extensive and productive. There is clear evidence that as it stands, the
student learning assessment program is fully institutionalized and the programs requiring more work
have been identified. While curriculum mapping has begun—GenEd has mapped its courses and most
programs have done some mapping to program outcomes—AU reports that wide-scale mapping is still
to come, as is improved communication of learning outcomes to students. It is helpful that AU has
identified these as focus areas, as the University has an excellent track record in achieving its objectives
in assessment.
6. Graduate and Professional Education
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention
Standard 11: Educational Offerings
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
Over the129 years since its founding as a graduate-only university, American has maintained a focus on
graduate and professional education. Today, it boasts offers 54 masters programs, 11 doctoral
programs (including a new communications PhD), 4 law programs, and several graduate certificate
programs across its seven schools and colleges. Representing 42% of the overall AU student body, it
enrolled 5,477 graduate students in fall 2013. Total enrollment in graduate programs is projected to
increase in the foreseeable future.
One of the 10 transformational goals of the strategic plan is to "demonstrate distinction in graduate,
professional, and legal studies.” AU’s graduate and professional programs will continue to require a
careful marketing strategy, high achievement in student learning outcomes, and successful job
placement. Administrative colleagues are at the heart of AU’s marketing and job placement services,
while learning goals and learning outcomes assessment protocols for graduate programs are being set
from the bottom up, with faculty driving and managing the processes.
An analysis of the self-study report indicates that the graduate programs are well managed. AU
administrators are actively working on adjusting the balance of central planning and support for
graduate program marketing and enrollment with local (usually department-based) admissions and
enrollment activities, with a recognition that some additional central coordination may be helpful if AUwide graduate enrollment growth targets are to be achieved. AU senior management is cognizant of the
changing graduate marketplace, and in line with AU’s enabling goal of “diversifying revenue sources,”
19
new programs are being conceived and developed to offset possible declines in MBA and JD programs
and the possible closure of a customized master’s program.
We spoke with graduate department and division heads—including for PhD programs in
communication, psychology, history, and international service—to learn about AU’s admission
processes. The process allows faculty committees to review applications and transmit successful
applicants to be admitted to the University.
American University doctoral enrollment figures are steady, in part due to its new PhD in
communication. AU is taking the initiative to keep its PhD programs robust and relevant, as
demonstrated by the newly designed PhD program in behavior, cognition, and neuroscience launched as
an interdisciplinary science program in 2009, and the PhD in communication, started in 2011. These
Ph.D. degree programs appear to move AU’s doctoral education opportunities in new strategic
directions and are designed to match faculty capabilities with student interests.
AU has undertaken innovative programs to maintain healthy enrollment in an era of decline in some
professional graduate areas. For example, it has introduced an MS in sustainability management, an MA
in political communication, an MA in comparative and international disability policy, an MS in audio
technology, an MA in international media, an MA in media entrepreneurship, an MA in social enterprise,
an MPA for GS13 Federal managers, and an MS in organization development. While graduate programs
in business are shrinking nationally, American University has not yet experienced a serious decline,
although it did right-size its MBA program several years ago to protect its quality. AU continues to work
on plans to maintain its enrollment in Kogod.
American University has been affected by the national trend of declining law school enrollment, with its
total law enrollment down despite modest growth in the LLM programs and the SJD program. As is true
nationally, careful management of enrollment is critical to achieve revenue targets while at least
maintaining quality. The program’s location in DC and its diversity of programs are strategic advantages
that the Washington College of Law is leveraging to good effect.
The team understands American University’s intention to grow the graduate student population by 5%
every year for the next 10 years, effectively increasing the graduate population by 1000, as one way of
diversifying revenue. We encourage that this growth be done strategically and in alignment with key
graduate and professional programs that reflect emerging and longstanding research strengths in the
institution. American University maintains its graduate tuition discount rate at about 29%, which is
relatively modest and will help them withstand some of the graduate enrollment challenges to be faced.
AU reports that it performs external review of all graduate programs, and there is also evidence that
they are actively using Academic Analytics (AA) to identify both its top-ranked and poorly ranked
programs compared to relevant and aspirational peers. AU deans and central leadership are encouraged
to use both external review information and AA data to inform decisions about differential investments
across its graduate and research programs.
20
American University’s curriculum development process is very comprehensive. Curricular changes are
initiated at the departmental level. From there, the proposed changes go to the dean’s office, and
afterwards to all schools/colleges for their comments, objections, and/or approval. Simultaneously, the
proposal is circulated via the University’s daily newspaper to the community at large for their
comments. The proposing department has to satisfy any objections of the schools/colleges before
forwarding its proposal it to the Faculty Senate for its approval. At the Faculty Senate, the proposing
department must include a record of public comments and other school/college approvals. The
Provost’s office may then approve the curricular changes, as does the Board of Trustees when there is a
proposed major curricular change.
The visiting team reviewed American University’s off-site “additional program” that awards two masters
degrees in McLean, VA exclusively for Freddie Mac employees under the auspices of its Kogod Business
School. A team member met with faculty members and administrators responsible for the site and
looked into the admission and retention standards (Standard 8), curriculum and educational offerings
(S11), facilities and instructional technology (S3), assessment of student learning (S14), student support
services (S9), integrity (S6), and faculty compensation (S10). The faculty is a mix of those who meet AU’s
Scholar-Teacher ideal (tenure-line faculty) and those who are heavy on practice (term and adjunct
faculty). Overall, the team found evidence of AU’s compliance with the applicable standards pertaining
to this site. While the continued operation of this site is uncertain, the team finds that it is in
compliance with applicable standards.
7. Other Educational Initiatives
Standard 13: Related Educational Offerings
American University offers a diverse cluster of related educational activities to complement the oncampus classroom component of student learning. The outline of non-traditional educational offerings
in American University’s self-study link their mission statement to the realities of today’s rapidly
changing society. It is clearly evident that the educational trends of the 21st century led AU to
systematically analyze a variety of its programs and services with a focus on meeting the demands of
digital-age students.
These innovative educational offerings are designed for a diverse population of students from the firstgeneration freshman to the working professional who struggles to manage home, work and education.
AU students are given ground-breaking opportunities to take part in learning experiences under the
direction of highly respected scholars including as participants in interdisciplinary research centers that
have received increasing support from the University. These centers support cross-disciplinary
collaborations for both graduate students and untenured junior faculty. For example, faculty from
both the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience and the Center for Food and Society work together to
address a wide range of pressing national problems . AU is recognized for its efforts in promoting
Interdisciplinary educational initiatives that not only increase student learning, but also their level of
engagement on and off campus. In accordance with Middle States, the fundamental elements of AU’s
21
mission and goals for collaborative participation is clearly evidenced in the administrative support given
to the planning and resource sharing of their Research Center initiatives.
It is evident that AU has an institutional commitment to learning outside the University through
experiential learning activities. Students have the opportunities to gain real-world experience serving as
interns in a wide variety of professional environments. The classroom faculty are involved in the
placement, monitoring, and evaluation of the students’ internship experiences. For example, as noted
in the Self-Study, “…virtually every school and department on campus offers student opportunities to
engage with prospective employers and professionals through group applied research and production
projects.” In a meeting with the visiting team, most of the students raised their hands when asked if
they had taken part in an internship experience.
American University is to be commended for its profound commitment to the enrichment of student
learning outcomes through a uniform application of innovative experiential projects. The
interdisciplinary approach to scholarship and teaching embedded in their research centers provide
students with life changing experiences. Internships and service learning opportunities are threaded
throughout many courses and programs. [A12]
Some of the disciplines and departments in AU have joined forces with Deltak, an online vendor, to
develop enhanced course offerings for improved student online learning experiences. As stated in the
self-study, AU resisted a serious exploration of MOOC’s (massive online open courses) but rather
“…stay(ed) true to its mission by focusing on what it does exceptionally well, teaching degree- and
certificate-seeking students in small classrooms.” Middle States encourages this kind of institutional
assessment which leads to greater effectiveness in student learning. It is evidenced in this
administrative decision to resist the MOOC concept for online education that AU is systematically
employing their mission statement as a critical standard for institutional decisions.
While there is a growing demand for online education, AU is capping class enrollments to ensure quality
and adherence to its mission and standards. Assessment measures are in place to ensure that online
courses have the same quality as on-campus offerings. There is a stringent review of all new online
courses in place, including an evaluation and approval by the department faculty, academic deans,
school and college faculty councils, the University library, and the Faculty Senate. Ongoing reviews are
still in place once the online course has been approved.
The Self-Study Report provides a summary assessment of American University’s science programs and
offerings. With no medical or engineering schools and very modest facilities, the science programs at
AU have been a valued part of the undergraduate liberal arts experience but only a modest research
engine. In an increasingly technological world, science and technology are clearly more and more
relevant and adjacent to the professional disciplines that have long been at the core of AU, and the
faculty, leadership, and trustees are actively and appropriately grappling with questions about the
“science strategy” that American should pursue. Clearly, AU should not try to pursue a comprehensive
“curiosity-driven” approach to science or to compete with its aspirational peers who have much
stronger traditions and accomplishments in the sciences—to do so would be to put the financial position
22
of the University in jeopardy. Neither should American forsake the sciences, both because they are an
ever-more-important part of a liberal arts education and because it would put at risk the relevance of
some of its professional programs. Indeed, the strategy that American is pursuing seems right: seek
those interdisciplinary areas of high impact in which science and policy are important in an integrated
way, make targeted investments in both the social science and science disciplines that are relevant to
the important problems in those areas, and partner with other universities to fill gaps, bringing AU’s
great expertise to the partnership. This is not an inexpensive strategy, as it will require faculty hiring,
instrumentation set-ups, and some investment in niche laboratory space; but if done wisely and highly
strategically, it can grow sponsored expenditures and allow American to be seen as relevant in key
science/policy areas. The work done thus far in identifying niches in behavioral neuroscience,
environment, and public health, and the development of the Technology and Innovation Center are
clearly steps in the right direction. The key will be to ensure that American pursues a science strategy
that is true to its Statement of Common Purpose and its well-rationalized strategic plan. The visiting
team encourages the University to integrate with this strategy an investment in laboratory facilities
that will be relevant for its basic undergraduate instructional programs. [S7]
Section VI. Conclusions
The Middle States visiting team is impressed by the current state of American University and the
progress it has made as an agile, planning-intensive, well-governed, well-run institution. The University
seems to know itself well and understand its special nature, as detailed in its Statement of Common
Purpose and expressed most recently in its strategic plan, which plays a central role in the life of the
institution as it is updated regularly and used for benchmarking and assessment. The pace of change
over the past seven years has been intense, which will continue to serve American well given the
continued highly dynamic nature of higher education. Investments in faculty, staff, academic and
research programs, and the physical plant have been considerable, and the institution is encouraged to
maintain its culture of evaluation and assessment around these areas to ensure that the “return” on the
investments—in terms of quality, productivity, and reputation—is strong.
As described in Section V, American University appears to meet Middles States Association’s Standards
1-14 in the visiting team’s judgment. The recommendations, accomplishments, and suggestions
interleaved throughout that narrative section are presented below for ease of reference and because, in
the team’s opinion, attention to these points will ensure continuous improvement.
The team again thanks American University, its leadership, and the entire community for its embrace of
the Middle States accreditation process as an opportunity for further learning and assessment, and we
are confident that the institution will be open to the ideas contained in this report. As a reminder, the
next steps in the evaluation process are as follows:
• American University replies to the team report in a written response addressed to the
Commission;
• The team chair submits a confidential brief to the Commission summarizing the team report
and conveying the team’s proposal for accreditation action;
23
•
•
The Commission staff and the Commission’s Committee on Evaluation Reports carefully
review the institutional self-study document, the evaluation team report, the institution’s
formal response, and the chair’s brief to formulate a proposed action to the Commission;
and
The full Commission, after considering information gained in the preceding steps, takes
formal accreditation action and notifies the institution.
Recommendations
R1. In light of the changing demographics of the undergraduate student body, the University as a
whole—inclusive of Campus Life, Academic Affairs, Enrollment Services, schools and colleges, and
business units— should carefully consider how best to support the more diverse student body and
ensure that its engagement in AU’s special opportunities, sense of belonging, degree of satisfaction,
and retention and graduation rates is carefully monitored and regularly assessed.
R2. The increased investment in the Scholar-Teacher ideal brings with it greater expectations for
scholarly impact and, as a result, the University should establish clear goals and detailed assessment
protocols at the individual and the unit levels to ensure that the University’s expectations are being
realized.
R3. The aggressive move to a new mix of tenure-line and term faculty also bears attention and careful
tracking both for long-serving faculty and those who will enter American University under this new
paradigm. AU should monitor the evolving faculty perceptions and degree of satisfaction in this new
environment and make adjustments in the model as necessary over time.
Accomplishments of Note
A1. The entire American University community is to be commended for its efforts and its success;
American University is stronger, more vibrant, more relevant, and better positioned as a result of
what has transpired over the past six years.
A2. American University’s strategic plan has penetrated all levels of the University to a remarkable
degree.
A3. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment performs an extraordinary service to American,
delivering information to many constituencies across the campus with sophistication, nuance and a
high degree of efficiency.
A4. The experience of American University over the last decade is testimony to the fact that an
investment by the leadership in planning and process improvement yields real fruit in academic
quality and the delivery of the academic mission of the University.
A5. Following the presidential transition in 2005-2006, AU revised its governance structure to be more
“effective, transparent and participatory.”
24
A6. The broad representation of University constituencies in governance contributes to a campus
culture of commitment to AU’s advancement in quality and reputation.
A7. The openness and transparency of governance at AU has been carried forward consistently under
the leadership of President Kerwin since he took office.
A8. The collaborative development—including faculty, the administration, and trustees—and adoption
of the new Faculty Manual by the Faculty Senate (2010 & 2011), that codifies among many topics
the tenure and promotion protocols for both tenure-line and term faculty, is commendable.
A9. The average teaching load, reduced from five to four courses for all tenure track faculty and for
tenured faculty active in research, is a milestone to allow more time for higher impact scholarship.
A10. AU is to be commended for the great and purposeful progress they have made in the recruitment
and enrollment of increasing numbers of underrepresented students of color, and Pell-eligible
students.
A11. The General Education Program, faculty-developed and monitored, is commended for its scope
and depth and for serving as the basis for university-wide learning assessment.
A12. American University is to be commended for its profound commitment to the enrichment of
student learning outcomes through a uniform application of innovative experiential projects. The
interdisciplinary approach to scholarship and teaching embedded in their research centers provide
students with life changing experiences. Internships and service learning opportunities are threaded
throughout many courses and programs.
Suggestions
S1. Additional needs in the facilities domain are recognized by the University and remain to be funded.
This points to the need for careful prioritization and focus on fundraising.
S2. As a precondition of endowment growth, the development function should become an institutional
priority and become more fully integrated into the fabric of the University.
S3. The University should continuously evaluate its resource allocation processes to ensure that there
are appropriate incentives for the academic units to engage in the kinds of entrepreneurial activity
that will advance programmatic goals and help increase revenue diversity.
S4. As the University continues to evolve, care must be given to ensure that the nature and quality of
support services are appropriate to the new environment.
S5. To ensure continued board renewal, it should consider instituting term limits.
25
S6. The University should continue to track staff turnover and monitor the effectiveness of the revised
annual staff performance review process.
S7. The key will be to ensure that American pursues a science strategy that is true to its Statement of
Common Purpose and its well-rationalized strategic plan. The visiting team encourages the
University to integrate with this strategy an investment in laboratory facilities that will be relevant
for its basic undergraduate instructional programs.
26
POLICY
Admission requirement
PRE AY 2014-15 (OLD)
Transfer applicants with fewer than
24 credit hours completed at the
time of application should also
submit their secondary school
record and standardized test scores.
2014-15 (CURRENT)
Transfer applicants with fewer than
24 credit hours completed at the time
of application should also submit the
secondary school record.
Maximum credits
A maximum of 75 credit hours will
be accepted on transfer from fouryear collegiate institutions. A
maximum of 60 credit hours will be
accepted from two-year collegiate
institutions. A maximum of 75
credit hours from all institutions of
higher education may be
transferred toward a bachelor’s
degree.
A maximum of 75 cumulative credit
hours will be accepted from the
following: 1) any approved AGrated regionally accredited two-year
and four-year institutions . . .
EXPLANATION
New practice now no longer requires
a transfer applicant with fewer than
24 credit hours to submit
standardized testing. This aligns with
current practice for first year
students, which places greatest
emphasis on high school transcript in
the evaluation process. Also
accommodates those transfer
applicants who are several years out
of high school and whose scores are
no longer valid.
No change to ongoing policy re:
accepting a maximum number of 75
credits from a variety of sources.
However, the change now expands
by 15 the number of credit hours an
applicant may transfer in from a
community college. Increasing
numbers of community colleges are
now offering four-year degrees. This
change acknowledges that.
Additionally, there is an issue
concerning the maintenance of the
INST table in Colleague. This is
huge table and it is very difficult for
your office to maintain it. For
instance, some 2 year institutions
have become 4 year institutions. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to
identify whether a school is a twoyear or a four- year institution and, in
some cases, if the change is fairly
recent, an evaluation would be
needed based on when the student
Mathematics requirement
Transfer students are required to
meet AU’s Mathematics and
Writing Requirements. Transfer
courses titled "Calculus I" or a
mathematics course for which
Calculus I is a prerequisite may be
used to satisfy AU's mathematics
requirement, providing that the
course was completed with a grade
of B or better at a regionally
accredited college.
Transfer students are required to
meet AU’s Mathematics and Writing
Requirements. Transfer courses
equivalent to Math-221 or higher may
be used to satisfy AU's mathematics
requirement, providing that the
course was completed with a grade of
B or better at an AG-rated collegiate
institution.
Transfer students may also satisfy
the mathematics requirement with a
score of 4 or 5 on the AP Calculus
AB, AP Calculus BC, or AP
Statistics exam; or a score of at least
650 on the SAT II Mathematics
Level II Achievement test; or at
least a 75 on the CLEP Calculus
exam; or an A or B on the British
A-Level mathematics exam; or a 6
or higher on the International
Baccalaureate higher-level
mathematics exam.
Transfer students may also satisfy the
mathematics requirement with a
score of 4 or 5 on the AP Calculus
AB, AP Calculus BC, or AP Statistics
exam; or a score of at least 650 on
the SAT II Mathematics Level II
Subject Test; or at least a 75 on the
CLEP Calculus exam; or an A or B
on the British A-Level mathematics
exam; or a 6 or higher on the
International Baccalaureate higherlevel mathematics exam.
took each course. Because most of
the credits students are transferring in
would be 100- or 200-level courses,
there is minimal impact on the
respective AU degree program.
This was a change that was
recommended and approved by the
Math/Stat department in July.
Website to be updated.
University Policy:
Undergraduate Transfer Credit Policy
Policy Category: Undergraduate Admission
Subject: Addresses policies pertaining to the transfer of credit and determination of course
equivalencies for prospective undergraduate students seeking admission to American University
Office Responsible for Review of this Policy: Office of Enrollment
Related University Policies: Credit by examination
I.
SCOPE
This policy relates to the determination of transfer credit equivalency, maximum number of
transferable credits, minimum grade requirements for transfer courses, mathematics and
writing requirements, transfer of credit post matriculation, transfer of credit by exam,
procedures for transfer of military, foreign language and mathematics courses, and appeals
pertaining to course articulations.
II.
DEFINITIONS
Transfer: A student entering the reporting institution for the first time but known to have
previously attended a postsecondary institution at the same level (e.g., undergraduate). The
student may transfer with or without credit.
Transferable course: A college-level course taken at another institution with a grade of C
or better may receive credit on the student’s AU transcript. Courses which are not at the
college-level or have a grade lower than a C are considered “non-transferable.”
Credit equivalency: A course taken at a regionally accredited institution has an equivalent
credit value at American University. Note: In general, courses taken on the quarter system
will receive the standard .67 credit per credit hour of study (i.e., a 3 credit course at a quarter
school will merit 2 credits at AU). Transfer courses must have the same number of credit
hours as an AU course in order to be considered “equivalent”.
Course articulation: A transferable course from another institution will receive an
articulation. This refers to the way the transfer course will receive credit on the AU
transcript.
Course-to-course equivalent: A transferable course which meets the same standards as an
AU course, including similar scope, content, rigor, and “seat time” (credit hours) will be
deemed equivalent to an AU course.
Commented [BB1]: This policy only applies to articulating
transfer courses for undergraduate students.
Elective credit: The course taken at another institution does not have an equivalent at
American University; however, the course may count as elective credit, either in the subject
or as a university “free” elective.
Elective General Education credit: The course taken at another institution does not have
an equivalent at American University but will count as elective credit and satisfies a General
Education requirement.
III.
POLICY
See attached document or refer to: http://www.american.edu/admissions/pdf/upload/Transfer-CreditPolicy-Updated-10-21-13-2.pdf
Undergraduate Transfer Credit Policy
Students who wish to be considered for transfer admission to American University (AU) must be in
good academic and social standing at the school previously attended.
All applicants with a
cumulative grade point average of at least 2.00 on a 4.00 scale from all regionally accredited
institutions will be considered.
The Office of Admissions will review official transcripts from each previously attended collegiate
institution to determine what credits may be eligible for transfer to AU. Credits are eligible for
transfer if they were earned through courses taken at an AG-rated, regionally accredited institution.
Courses are considered equivalent to AU courses when faculty determine the transferred course is
similar in content and scope to a course at AU.
Credit Equivalency
Credit that is transferrable to AU under the guidelines listed above will be evaluated for equivalency
to AU courses. Faculty from individual teaching units (schools, colleges and/or departments within
the University) will determine how transferrable credit will apply to specific degree programs.
External Special Topics courses will receive subject level elective credit.
External courses may not be equivalent to AU Special topics courses.
Independent Study transfer courses will not receive transfer credit.
Transfer credit may be applied to specific degree program requirements at the academic unit’s
discretion. If a student changes to a different program, the application of transfer credit to specific
degree requirements may change, and could possibly result in a change in the student’s
undergraduate class standing. Note that this may affect financial awards.
AU Equivalent Credit means that the course taken at another institution has an equivalent at
American University. Equivalency is defined as meeting the same standards as an AU course,
including similar scope, content, rigor, and “seat time” (credit hours). If the equivalent AU course
is considered to be part of the General Education program, the transfer course may also be applied
to the General Education requirement.
Elective Credit means that the course taken at another institution does not have an equivalent at
American University; however, the course may count as elective credit, either in the subject or as a
university “free” elective. The transfer course may not be used to satisfy a General Education
requirement, and each academic unit may decide if and how the elective course may be applied
toward the program of study.
Elective General Education Credit means that the course taken at another institution does not have
an equivalent at American University, will count as elective credit, and satisfies a General
Education requirement.
Maximum Credits
Students may transfer a cumulative total of 75 credits from the following:
1) a maximum of 75 credits from an approved four-year or two-year institution;
2) a maximum of 30 credits from one or a combination of Advanced Placement (AP), International
Baccalaureate, CLEP subject examinations, or other AU approved test credit;
3) a maximum of 30 credits for a combination of relevant work completed satisfactorily in collegelevel armed Services School courses, or US armed Forces institute correspondence or extension
courses, completed with a grade of 70 or better, as recommended at the baccalaureate level by the
American Council on Education and which is appropriate for academic credit as determined by the
Admissions Office after consultation with the appropriate academic unit. Military Occupation
Services (MOS) credit may be evaluated separately for academic credit;
4) Students will not be able to register for a second semester at AU until all final official transcripts
have been sent to the AU Office of Admissions from previously attended institutions.
Minimum Grade Requirements
Courses eligible for transfer upon matriculation to AU must have a recorded grade of C or above.
Courses with a grade of “P” or Pass are eligible for transfer, providing that the grade of “P” is the
equivalent of a C or above. Only credit for courses taken at another institution are recorded on the
AU transcript and will count toward the total number of credits needed for graduation if the grade is
a 2.0 or above on a 4.0 scale. Grades for transfer courses are not computed in the cumulative grade
point average
Courses taken on the quarter system will receive the standard .67 credit per credit-hour of study
(i.e., a 3 credit course at a quarter school will merit 2 credits here). Transfer courses must have the
same number of credit hours as an AU course in order to be considered “equivalent”.
Credit for remedial courses and internship/externship are not eligible for transfer to AU.
Technical or vocational credits, credits may not be eligible for transfer to AU. Mathematics and Writing Requirements
Transfer students are required to meet AU’s Mathematics and Writing Requirements. Transfer
courses titled "Calculus I" or a mathematics course for which Calculus I is a prerequisite may be
used to satisfy AU's mathematics requirement, providing that the course was completed with a
grade of B or better at a regionally accredited college. Transfer students may also satisfy the
mathematics requirement with a score of 4 or 5 on the AP Calculus AB, AP Calculus BC, or AP
Statistics exam; or a score of at least 650 on the SAT II Mathematics Level II Achievement test; or
at least a 74 on the CLEP Calculus exam; or an A or B on the British A-Level mathematics exam;
or a 6 or higher on the International Baccalaureate higher-level mathematics exam.
AU’s college writing requirement may be satisfied by transferring six credit hours of acceptable
English composition courses from another college with a score of C or better, and also passing AU's
English Competency Examination. This requirement may also be satisfied through a combination
of transferring three credit hours of an acceptable English composition course with a grade of C or
better, and passing a Literature course at AU with a C or better, within the first 30 credits in
residence at AU. This requirement may also be met if students received a score of 4 or 5 on the AP
English Language and Composition exam, or a score of 5 or higher on the Higher Level
International Baccalaureate Examination, and completes a Literature course at AU with a grade of C
or better, within the first 30 credits in residence at AU.
Post Matriculation Transfer Credit
Once a student has matriculated, AU only accepts transfer work approved in advance by the
Academic Unit via the Permit to Student process. Students must satisfy all requirements of the
Permit to Study process including advance approval for specific courses and a maximum number of
credits. General Education credit and University Mathematics and Writing credit may not be earned
after matriculation to AU through the Permit to Study process.
Transfer Credit by Exam
Transfer students may earn transfer credit by exam. All scores must be sent by the testing agency
directly to American University. Credit will be given in accordance with the guidelines AU
stipulates for all admitted students. Credit will be applied towards a student’s program of study at
the academic unit’s discretion.
All exam scores must be received by the AU Office of Admissions no later than the end of the first
enrolled term.
Students
should
review
the
University’s
policies
for
credit
by
exam:
http://www.american.edu/admissions/examcredit.cfm#AP
Students whose exam scores articulate as credit for one or more courses in the General Education
Program may apply up to four (4) credit-by-exam courses to their General Education requirement.
Additional courses may still be applied toward the major or minor, or as elective credit.
Transfer of Foreign Language Courses
Students who wish to transfer foreign language courses from previous institutions must follow the
guidelines established by the Department of World Languages and Cultures (WLC).
Please visit the WLC website for more information:
http://www.american.edu/cas/wlc/placement.cfm
Transfer of Mathematics Courses
Courses below the Pre-Calculus level will not receive transfer credit.
Please
see
the
AU
Academic
Regulations
for
more
information:
http://www.american.edu/provost/undergrad/undergrad-rules-and-regulations.cfm#8.3
Articulation Appeal
Students who believe they have not been awarded credit for an academic course from another
college or university, or who believe that a course has been incorrectly articulated, may submit a
formal appeal in writing to the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies. Students
should meet with their academic advisor to discuss the appeal, and if appropriate, the advisor will
email the student a link to the appeal form.
Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, and Students
of
American University
Washington, District of Columbia
By
The Evaluation Team representing the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Prepared after review of the Self Study Report and a
team visit to the campus on
March 23-26, 2014
Link to the report:
http://www.american.edu/middlestates/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfil
e&pageID=3858772